Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 19:37 On Jul 21, 6:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. If you looked up from the surface of the Earth to 'see' the aether it would appear as if the aether were 'flowing' east to west compared to the surface of the Earth. The aether is still 'flowing' west to east but not at the same rate as the surface of the Earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations." Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster. The experiments are evidence of Aether Displacement.
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 19:38 On Jul 21, 7:13 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. The preferred frame is the state of the dark matter.
From: Edward Green on 21 Jul 2010 20:14 On Jul 15, 6:41 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Edward Green says... > > > > >On Jul 12, 9:36 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >You are extending the meaning of "spacetime" to something dynamic. > > It *is* dynamic! The metric tensor is a dynamic field in exactly the same > sense that the electromagnetic field is. OK. > >As an old troll was fond of repeating over and over again, "nothing moves > >in spacetime". > > He was a deeply stupid person. But even deeply stupid people can occasionally latch onto a correct phrase. As you explicate below... > Okay, if you like, you can always recast GR into a theory for how > 3-space evolves instead of a theory of 4-space. Then you can call > the 3-space your "aether". I don't really care. The real question > is what do you want to *conclude* from the existence or non-existence > of an aether? A material aether opens up the possibility of new > microscopic structure at fine-grained enough scale; perhaps the > aether is made up of tiny particles, and only seems isotropic, > homogeneous, and invariant under Lorentz transformations at a > macroscopic scale. I somehow don't think the aether is made of tiny particles... the idea is too medieval. Or maybe Cartesian. > (Of course, the word "macroscopic" here is kind of bizarre; Lorentz > invariance seems to hold way down at the level of quarks. So a material aether > would be something so fine-grained that quarks look macroscopic in comparison.) I think I am really replying to another post of yours, which I can't find right now, but to recap: The last paragraph of Einstein's 1920 address to the students at Leyden is often cited as proof that "Einstein believed in an ether". The retort to this is often "that ether was spacetime". I disagree, based on internal evidence from the talk itself. His "ether" was a modification of Lorentz's ether, which itself was certainly not spacetime, and the modification was certainly not to make the ether higher dimensional. The talk is very clear on this point. My beef is that it's become part of the folklore that Einstein had no use whatsoever for the concept of ether, and hence, his clear remarks are glibly explained away as referring to a 4d spacetime, and not a 3d ether. That's all.
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 20:17 On Jul 21, 6:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 5:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. The aether is displaced by the Earth. Aether is not at rest when displaced and returns to its previous state after interacting with the Earth. This causes the aether to have the affect of 'flowing' east to west with respect to the surface of the Earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations." Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster. The experiments are evidence of Aether Displacement.
From: Edward Green on 21 Jul 2010 20:44
On Jul 18, 1:08 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: Ah, _here_ is the post I meant to reply to. > 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? Well, it's certainly a very slippery customer, I'll grant you that. > >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. Yes. > But I prefer to talk about spacetime because > the factoring into space + time is not unique, and is not motivated by > anything physical. I reserve judgment about your last claim, although I have no counter- argument at present. > >"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. I don't think he intended it to mean anything different. The content of GR is the content of GR regardless, and that is why these remarks of Einstein's are sort of an historical curiosity. I just would like to set the record straight on what I view as their glib folkloric misinterpretation. > >"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. Well, just to be picky, he is saying here that there _are_ no floaters; whose purpose in this analogy, by the way, is to fix the rest frame of the water, not to visualize the waves, which are regarded as being visible anyway. He is saying we are aware of the existence of the water via the waves in it, though we cannot assign a rest frame to it. > 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 that the "spacetime manifold" in my view is the sort of God's eye record of the activities of the 3d stuff that is doing the undulating. As you point out, we can't uniquely take such 3d slices anyway, so the concept of the spacetime manifold may seem better motivated (I seem to be talking myself out of my position here -- but not quite). > 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 like the word "prior". It is an old idea of mine that we could find an explanation of SR (locally) in terms of something logically prior to space and time (whatever precisely that means). Maybe it's something like action -- the universe speaks "action". It does pop up in the integrand of Feynman path integrals, does it not? And makes some other appealing cameos, like the volume element in phase space (do I have that right?). What think you? Space and time are after all merely the observation of certain regularities in "stuff happening", and SR tells us that there is a family of such regularities. I've never quite been satisfied with that observation as a postulate, I feel we can dig deeper, peel one more layer back on the onion. > >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. With that caveat, we have reached cordial agreement. No incompatibility. |