Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 21 Jul 2010 20:44 Edward Green says... > >On Jul 15, 6:41=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> 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. Well, if there *isn't* some kind of microscopic structure at a fine-grained level, then what is the meaning of calling it an "aether" as opposed to just "space" (or spacetime)? >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. As I said, I don't understand what it *means* to say that there is an aether, as opposed to there not being an aether, but there being a manifold (space, or spacetime) through which all things propagate. >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. Hmm. So is your point really is about the distinction between a 3-space evolving as a function of time, and a 4-space? They seem identical to me. They are just two different ways of describing the same reality. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 21 Jul 2010 21:02 On Jun 25, 9:14 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > There is a variety of anti-relativity dissident that consists of > people who accept length contraction and time dilation, but don't > accept the relativity principle. They assume something along the > lines of: > > There is a preferred frame, F, and there is an associated > coordinate system such that > > 1. Light travels in straight lines at speed c, as measured in F's > coordinate system. Light doesn't travel in straight lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation Sue,.. "idiot" --Uncle Al
From: Edward Green on 21 Jul 2010 21:05 On Jul 21, 8:44 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Well, if there *isn't* some kind of microscopic structure > at a fine-grained level, then what is the meaning of calling > it an "aether" as opposed to just "space" (or spacetime)? <...> > Hmm. So is your point really is about the distinction between > a 3-space evolving as a function of time, and a 4-space? They > seem identical to me. They are just two different ways of describing > the same reality. "...with the development of quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the 'zero-point' oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the 'zero-point' fluctuations of electric charge and current, and of a 'polarization' corresponding to a dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name 'vacuum' for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical word 'aether' may fitly be retained". E.T. Whittaker Space will do, but I prefer the ae-word.
From: Androcles on 21 Jul 2010 21:40 "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote in message news:1c216972-7b15-4d80-a53f-78ccfe178ffa(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... 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. ============================================ Well, Einstein certainly was a very slippery self-serving arsehole, 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. ============================== (space + time)/spacetime = space/spacetime + time/spacetime. Nice factoring for a babbling lunatic.
From: Edward Green on 21 Jul 2010 22:16
On Jul 17, 2:15 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > ... Hafele and Keating had to base > their SR calculations on a preferred frame of reference. If they had > used a point on the Earth or either plane then SR would not have > returned the correct result. Because in SR we base our calculations on inertial frames of reference. In that sense, these are preferred frames. In fact, there are virtually always preferred frames, even in GR, which claims to treat all frames as brothers, because there are frames in which the symmetry of the problem results in simplifications. What's your beef? Who told you SR had no preferred reference frames? |