Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 23 Jul 2010 05:29 On Jul 22, 2:22 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Edward Green says... > > > >On Jul 18, 1:08=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> >"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". Not a typo but a scanning error -> "movable" > >> 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. > > After re-reading the passage, I have to agree with your interpretation. That is correct. Harald
From: mpc755 on 23 Jul 2010 07:35 On Jul 22, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 7:09 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Well, that's what YOU say. But as I told Mike Cavedon, this is in > conflict with experiment. > 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. Why can't you answer any of the following? Why doesn't conservation of momentum apply to downgraded photon pairs? If it did then it would be understood the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photon's momentum which requires the downgraded photon pair to have opposite angular momentums and to always be detected with opposite spins which means there is no need for the absurd nonsense of instantaneous action at a distance. 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water." Does the ripple eventually reach the Earth? If not then were does the dark matter end and is where the dark matter ends the beginning of a void and if not a void then what are the properties space has where there is no dark matter and how do these properties distinguish this region of space from dark matter? If so then that is evidence dark matter exists from the point of the galaxy cluster collision to the Earth. Dark matter exists between the Earth and the galaxy cluster collision. The ripple will reach the Earth. The ripple propagates through the dark matter which exists between the Earth and the galaxy cluster collision. Dark matter is the medium in which the ripple propagates. Dark matter is the medium in which light waves propagate. The ripple is a gravity wave. The ripple is displaced dark matter. 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: mpc755 on 23 Jul 2010 07:43 On Jul 23, 5:29 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 22, 2:22 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: > > > > > Edward Green says... > > > >On Jul 18, 1:08=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > >wrote: > > >> >"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". > > Not a typo but a scanning error -> "movable" > > > >> 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. > > > After re-reading the passage, I have to agree with your interpretation. > > That is correct. > > Harald Einstein in the article also says, "The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places". Again, with the analogy of water, the state of the aether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. Again, with the analogy of water, water is not at rest when displaced and exerts pressure towards the object which is displacing the water. The further analogy is placing a bowling ball into a tank of water. The bowling ball displaces the water. When you take the bowling ball out of the tank of water a void does not remain. The water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. The water applied pressure towards the bowling ball. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced. The aether applies pressure towards the matter. Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity. Aether has mass. Aether and dark matter are different labels for the same material. Aether and dark matter are the material of space unoccupied by matter.
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:24 On Jul 22, 7:49 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, PaulStowe<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. > > But then we're not talking about kinetic theory or standard fluid > mechanics. That's totally coherent flow. IFAIKT that's a forced, > artifical situation never found in nature. Of course. Your claim was that a general drift in molecules NECESSARILY implies that gradV is nonzero. All I pointed out is that this is not a legitimate conclusion. You certainly might have gradV nonzero in a fluid, but this is something that is separate from the fact that, in kinetic theory, stochastic motion is separated from coherent motion. > > > > > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Edward Green on 24 Jul 2010 21:00
On Jul 21, 11:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 9:16 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > Let's make a small but important distinction. "Preferred frame" does > not mean "the frame in which it is easiest to make calculations". A > similar situation arises with potential energy, where the choice of > (x,y,z) to set U(x,y,z)=0 is physically arbitrary, which is an > important statement physically. There are of course choices for such > zero-point-setting which do make calculations easier, but physically > there is no difference. This analogy seems closer for GR, where the machinery really has been arranged to make the choice of reference frames as seemingly arbitrary as picking a zero of potential, than in SR, where inertial frames are required to calculate at all in, AFAIK. "colp"'s beef seemed to be with the use of inertial reference frames in SR. |