Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Physics]
|
Prev: l'ns t'grs n brs was Re: Furry Zul problems was Re: Furry was Re:Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS was Re: Baby Gazoo
Next: Pentcho Valev INVOLUNTARILY MOVES BOWELS
From: Koobee Wublee on 8 Jul 2010 03:42 On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > No. You obviously do not know what local Lorentz invariance means. The mathematics of the Lorentz transform is so simple. In order to justify the proliferation of mysticism, the self-styled physicists have to resort to creating new vocabularies. So, it started out as simple 'spacetime' in circa 1907. We saw 'proper time' a couple years later and 'inertial frame'. Finally, we have 'proper space', 'proper speed', 'proper velocity', and 'proper acceleration'. Gee! There ought to be a 'proper force', 'proper electric field', etc. <shrug> Or better yet, 'proper nonsense'. > It means that ALL the locally-valid equations of a theory referenced to a given > inertial frame are unchanged in form by a Lorentz transform to another inertial > frame. Yeah, it is wonderful that you have found a mathematical transformation that preserve the invariance. Well, that same mathematical axiom also haunts you by creating paradoxes. In real life, the Lorentz transform does not model anything realistic. It is a subset of the more general Larmor's transform in which everything has to be referenced back to an absolute frame of reference as the null results of the MMX demand. Written in the familiar form where both frames move in parallel relative to the absolute frame of reference really has played havoc on self-styled physicists in the past 100 years. It mistakenly giving birth to this Lorentz transform. Well, in time the self-styled physicists will realize their mistakes. <shrug> See the link below. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > In LET, the speed of light referenced to the ether frame is c, and when > referenced to some moving frame is not c (it is c+-v, speaking loosely). But the > Lorentz transform will leave any speed of c unchanged. So the equations of LET > describing the propagation of light are not Lorentz invariant. The MEASUREMENTS > in a moving frame yield the value c, but that is not the true speed of light in LET. This is totally nonsense. In any transforms except the Galilean (ballistic theory of light), light speed is isotropicly invariant. The first person to realize that was Voigt in which the Voigt transform was created --- not some Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. The self-styled physicists just need to get the special laws expected from this absolute frame of reference out of their heads. <shrug> It is elusive, yes, but not so completely invisible. The first glimpse is the Doppler shift in CMBR. Now, we know where and how to look. <shrug> Galileo was wrong. However, the principle of relative still works at low speeds. Newtonian laws of physics is totally based on Galileo's works. Thus, at high speed, we should also expect to see a breakdown in Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug>
From: artful on 8 Jul 2010 05:29 On Jul 8, 5:42 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > No. You obviously do not know what local Lorentz invariance means. > > The mathematics of the Lorentz transform is so simple. Then why are you so confused by it? [snip koobee whining because physics uses simple well-defiend terms he deson't understand] > > It means that ALL the locally-valid equations of a theory referenced to a given > > inertial frame are unchanged in form by a Lorentz transform to another inertial > > frame. > > Yeah, it is wonderful that you have found a mathematical > transformation that preserve the invariance. Well, that same > mathematical axiom also haunts you by creating paradoxes. No paradoxes. You keep lying and saying they exist .. but you never come up with the goods in actually presenting one. > In real > life, the Lorentz transform does not model anything realistic. More lies .. every experiment for testing SR shows SR (using lorentz transforms) predicts the results. > It is > a subset of the more general Larmor's transform in which everything > has to be referenced back to an absolute frame of reference as the > null results of the MMX demand. More lies .. They demand no such thing > Written in the familiar form where > both frames move in parallel relative to the absolute frame of > reference really has played havoc on self-styled physicists in the > past 100 years. It mistakenly giving birth to this Lorentz > transform. Well, in time the self-styled physicists will realize > their mistakes. <shrug> The only one making mistakes is you. You're a liar and a nitwit. Just waiting for you to be a plagiarist > See the link below. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587f... > > > In LET, the speed of light referenced to the ether frame is c, and when > > referenced to some moving frame is not c (it is c+-v, speaking loosely).. But the > > Lorentz transform will leave any speed of c unchanged. So the equations of LET > > describing the propagation of light are not Lorentz invariant. The MEASUREMENTS > > in a moving frame yield the value c, but that is not the true speed of light in LET. > > This is totally nonsense. Koobee speak for it is perfectly correct. It just doesn't agree with his lies > In any transforms except the Galilean > (ballistic theory of light), light speed is isotropicly invariant. Totally wrong > The first person to realize that was Voigt in which the Voigt > transform was created So what? > --- not some Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> Noone claims Einstein invented the Voigt transforsm, nor the lorentz transforms. It is for how they are derived and interpretted that he is famed. > > Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > The self-styled physicists just need to get the special laws expected > from this absolute frame of reference out of their heads. <shrug> No absolute frame > It is elusive, yes, but not so completely invisible. The first > glimpse is the Doppler shift in CMBR. Now, we know where and how to > look. <shrug> That there is a CMBR does not mean there is an absolute frame, or that any special laws of physics apply to it > Galileo was wrong. However, the principle of relative still works at > low speeds. Newtonian laws of physics is totally based on Galileo's > works. Thus, at high speed, we should also expect to see a breakdown > in Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug> Not under GR
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 05:45 On Jul 7, 10:05 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... [..] Still one more clarification: > >> If you are asking, not about General Relativity, but the General > >> Principle of Relativity: that isn't a theory of physics, it is > >> a heuristic, or a philosophical position, or metaphysics. It has > >> no physical meaning, except to the extent that it guides us in > >> coming up with better theories of physics. > > >I rarely saw a more aggressive criticism against Einstein's > >theory. :-) > > The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. Einstein's theory was based on that postulate and so the objection to that postulate was, as he described, an "objection against the Theory of Relativity". Cheers, Harald
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 05:47 On Jul 7, 11:49 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:05 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > harald says... > > > >On Jul 7, 6:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > >> If you are asking, not about General Relativity, but the General > > >> Principle of Relativity: that isn't a theory of physics, it is > > >> a heuristic, or a philosophical position, or metaphysics. It has > > >> no physical meaning, except to the extent that it guides us in > > >> coming up with better theories of physics. > > > >I rarely saw a more aggressive criticism against Einstein's > > >theory. :-) > > > The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. > > Right. It is an assumption, and the application of that assumption > leads to contradictions. This is a case of doctrinal annihilation; > i.e. a set of postulates that are collectively inconsistent. > > The relevant postulates are: > > 1. There is not preferred frame of reference. Do you know the intended meaning of those words? Do you how the PoR was originally formulated, so that you can understand those words correctly? Harald > 2. Moving clocks run slow. (Paraphrased from Einsteins > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") > > Since we know that moving clocks _do_ run slow, the only logical > conclusion is that a preferred frame of reference exists. > > The assertion that a preferred frame of reference exists is a > philisophical one, and points towards the epistemological schism of > natural philosophy which led to the development of science (i.e. > knowledge of the physical realm) and religion (i.e. beliefs about the > theological realm) as separate disciplines.
From: Daryl McCullough on 8 Jul 2010 06:28
harald says... >On Jul 7, 10:05=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. > >Einstein's theory was based on that postulate and so the objection to >that postulate was, as he described, an "objection against the Theory >of Relativity". That sounds overly dramatic. Certainly the discover of an aether frame would undermine the basis for his Special and General Relativity (although they could still survive as approximate theories, good for macroscopic phenomena. This latter possibility is kind of weird, because SR is known to be accurate for describing the very tiny world of subatomic particles. Presumably the discovery of an aether frame would be relevant at the super-microscopic level in which quarks seem macroscopic.) But rejection of the generalized principle of relativity on philosophical or other basis would not have much impact on the physical theory of relativity. Physicists *DO* reject the generalized principle of relativity expressed as the requirement of general covariance because it is physically vacuous. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |