Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 23:42 On Jul 21, 6:13 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. No sir. That is NOT what the principle of relativity says. The principle of relativity does NOT say that observed behavior in one frame will be the same as observed behavior in another frame. Even Galileo observed that the path of a ball dropped from the top of the mast of a ship is a straight line trajectory in one reference frame and a parabolic curved trajectory in another reference frame. It simply is not true that if it is a curved trajectory in one frame, then the principle of relativity demands a curved trajectory in all inertial frames. Moreover, it does not even say that the *accounting of events* is the same in all frames. A classic example is the barn and pole puzzle, where the observation is that a pole that is too long for a barn can neverless be observed to not strike barn doors when the barn doors are closed with the pole inside. In one frame, the accounting of events is that the pole is in fact shorter than the barn when moving, and that this is evidenced by the barn doors closing at the same time and the pole being completely inside. In another frame, the accounting of events is that one door is shut before the other, rather than simultaneously, and this is why the pole can pass through the barn without striking either door. What the principle of relativity says is something much more careful: It says that the laws of physics that are governing the system are identical in form. Note this DOES NOT MEAN that the trajectories or dynamical accounts of behaviors are the same. The laws of physics for a straight line fall or a parabolic fall are identical, but the trajectories are clearly not. > > If you argue that the behaviour will be different, then you are > effectively arguing for the existence of a preferred frame.
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 23:43 On Jul 21, 5:49 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. > You still have not answered this question.
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 23:46 On Jul 21, 9:32 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 6:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 20, 7:21 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > {Snip...} > > > > > > > > > > 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. The center of mass of the fluid is in no way an > > > > absolute frame. > > > > Where is the 'center of mass' for the pacific ocean??? > > > This is relatively straightforward to calculate. Why would you think > > it's difficult? > > In general R_cms = int[R*rho*dv]/int[rho*dv], where R_cms and R are > > vectors, R is the location of a volume element dv weighted by mass > > density rho (rho(R)). > > The momentum of any of the elements doesn't enter into it. Can you see > > why? > > > > I think what > > > you really wanted to say is the frame where the local sum of the > > > population vector momenta is zero. > > > I think that's equivalent. > > > > But, note what I said kinetic > > > theory 'which underpins' fluid mechanics. At the scales small enough > > > where kinetic theory is necessary... But, either way, there is no > > > physical preference for any imagined coordinate system, aka, reference > > > frame. > > > That's not quite right. There's the presumption that (1/2)m(v_rms)_x^2 > > = 1/2)m(v_rms)_y^2 = 1/2)m(v_rms)_z^2. This won't be true where there > > is a general drift from left to right of the molecules. > > Then Grad V != 0... With Grad V you have a non-inertial situation, > but even then, one can 'localized' their volume of interest to a small > enough region such that the Gradient asymptotically vanishes. No, it does not imply that. Consider the asymptotic case where all the particles are moving in the +x direction, so that v_x = c, v_y = 0, v_z = 0. Here grad V = 0. > > Paul Stowe > > > > > > > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 22 Jul 2010 04:19 On Jul 21, 11:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 5:49 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. > > You still have not answered this question. You still have not answered the questions. Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause spacetime to curve but not move. Explain what occurs physically in nature which allows a C-60 molecule to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without losing momentum. Explain what occurs physically in nature when mass converts to energy. Explain what occurs physically in nature which allows the future to determine the past. Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. Dark Matter Displacement explains what occurs physically in nature in all of the above. Dark matter is displaced by matter. Dark matter is not at rest when displaced. Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the matter. A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. Physical effects caused by matter converting to dark matter is energy. Mass is conserved. The future does not determine the past in the physics of nature. Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity.
From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 08:09
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. Sure it has....absolute motion determines the rate of a clock. Clocks in relative motion are in different states of absolute motion....that's why they are desynchronized when they reunited. Ken Seto You may want to look at the > experimental tests that have been done, which would rule that out > completely. Nice babble, though.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |