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: harald on 12 Jul 2010 04:46 On Jul 12, 1:06 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > > > >> > I agree that there is a paradox in his introduction: > > >> > 1. Natural phenomena (incl. mechanical phenomena) suggested to him > >> > that these do not have "properties corresponding to the idea of > >> > absolute rest" > >> > 2. Based on that, he accepted for all natural phenomena the classical > >> > PoR, which is defined relative to the *special* group of reference > >> > systems "for which the equations of mechanics hold good". > > >> > Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested > >> > to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with > >> > Einstein's suggestion in statement 1! > > >> No, it doesn't. > > >It did - Newton can't hear you anymore, he is dead; but we can still > >"hear" him through his writings. > > >> The special group of reference systems are the > >> inertial reference systems, which implies NOTHING about absolute rest. > > >I now compare one page of arguments by Newton (+ one page by Langevin) > >with ZERO arguments by you. So far I find them more convincing than > >you. Why would that be? ;-) > > Okay, well I've looked at the references you have provided for what > Newton said, and they just do not seem to be correct. He writes, for > example: > > -----------------------Begin Newton quote--------------------------------- > The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of > receding from the axis of circular motion. For there are no such forces in a > circular motion purely relative, but in a true and absolute circular motion, > they are greater or less, according to the quantity of the motion. If a vessel, > hung by a long cord, is so often turned about that the cord is strongly twisted, > then filled with water, and held at rest together with the water; after, by the > sudden action of another force, it is whirled about the contrary way, and while > the cord is untwisting itself, the vessel continues, for some time in this > motion; the surface of the water will at first be plain, as before the vessel > began to move: but the vessel, by gradually communicating its motion to the > water, will make it begin sensibly to evolve, and recede by little and little > from the middle, and ascend to the sides of the vessel, forming itself into a > concave figure (as I have experienced), and the swifter the motion becomes, the > higher will the water rise, till at last, performing its revolutions in the same > times with the vessel, it becomes relatively at rest in it. This ascent of the > water shows its endeavour to recede from the axis of its motion; and the true > and absolute circular motion of the water, which is here directly contrary to > the relative, discovers itself, and may be measured by this endeavour. At first, > when the relative motion of the water in the vessel was greatest, it produced no > endeavour to recede from the axis; the water showed no tendency to the > circumference, nor any ascent towards the sides of the vessel, but remained of a > plain surface, and therefore its true circular motion had not yet begun. But > afterwards, when the relative motion of the water had decreased, the ascent > thereof towards the sides of the vessel proved its endeavour to recede from the > axis; and this endeavour showed the real circular motion of the water > perpetually increasing, till it had acquired its greatest quantity, when the > water rested relatively in the vessel. And therefore this endeavour, does not > depend upon any translation of the water in respect of the ambient bodies, nor > can true circular motion be defined by such translation. There is only one real > circular motion of any one revolving body, corresponding to only one power of > endeavouring to recede from its axis of motion, as its proper and adequate > effect; but relative motions, in one and the same body, are innumerable, > according to the various relations it bears to external bodies, and like other > relations, are altogether destitute of any real effect, any otherwise than they > may partake of that one only true motion. And therefore in their system who > suppose that our heavens, revolving below the sphere of the fixed stars, carry > the planets along with them; the several parts of those heavens and the planets, > which are indeed relatively at rest in their heavens, do yet really move. For > they change their position one to another (which never happens to bodies truly > at rest), and being carried together with their heavens, partake of their > motions, and as parts of revolving wholes, endeavour to recede from the axis of > their motions. > ------------------End Newton quote----------------------------------------- > > This argument is completely wrong, if it is understood as an argument in favor > of an absolute standard for rest. All the phenomena that he describes for > absolute motion (you spin a bucket of water, and the surface of the water > becomes concave) works exactly the same way in *any* inertial frame. It > doesn't single out a rest frame. Indeed it doesn't, nor did I see him pretend that it does... As you know, the PoR is included in Newtonian mechanics (just in other words). > What these experiments *do* single out are the inertial frames. Exactly, that's the point. > If you havce a > system of coordinates, you can by performing various experiments determine > whether your coordinates are inertial, Cartesian coordinates, as opposed to > curvilinear, accelerated coordinates. Einstein understood (AFTER 1905) that Newton tried to model a physical cause; and that only Mach proposed an alternative explanation (instead of "Space", "the stars"). However, neither Mach nor himself could create a fully "Machian" theory - and, if I'm not mistaken, nobody else so far. > How much does an incorrect argument count towards a conclusion? I would say > nothing at all. Newton's arguments, to the extent that they are arguing for > the existence of an absolute standard of rest, are incorrect. > > Now, it's always possible that I've misinterpreted Newton. He's not around to > say one way or the other. Yes you surely did misinterpret him - but there isn't much room for such misunderstandings. Regards, Harald
From: Daryl McCullough on 12 Jul 2010 06:33 In article <e0a2bba6-09bf-4a96-9ba9-7104d30ba7de(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, harald says... >> ...All the phenomena that he describes for >> absolute motion (you spin a bucket of water, and the surface of the water >> becomes concave) works exactly the same way in *any* inertial frame. It >> doesn't single out a rest frame. Indeed it doesn't, nor did I see him pretend that it does... As you know, the PoR is included in Newtonian mechanics (just in other words). I thought you were saying that Newton was arguing for an absolute rest frame. >> What these experiments *do* single out are the inertial frames. > >Exactly, that's the point. I don't understand, then. As I said, I thought you were saying that Newton was making arguments in favor of an absolute standard of rest. If he was only making an argument in favor of an absolute standard for acceleration, then that's not news. Yes, inertial frames are special. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 12 Jul 2010 07:04 harald says... > >On Jul 12, 12:36=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> I think that the phrase "correct information" means something different >> to you than it does to me. The theories of classical mechanics, >> elecromagnetism, and relativity have developed since the times of >> Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. I believe that those subjects are better >> understood by physicists today than they were by the people that created >> the subjects. You might think that by definition that's impossible; >> if people understand something different than Newton did, then what >> they are doing is not Newtonian mechanics, it's something different. >> Fine. It's something different, that's *derived* from Newton's physics, >> and is still generally called "Newtonian physics" in his honor. > >That's fine, if it really were presented like that. Which textbooks >are that honest? The textbooks that I used, for instance, were *physics* textbooks, not *history* textbooks. There was no claim made that what was being presented was verbatim what Newton or Einstein wrote. >Students are being fooled into thinking that there >are presented with what essentially are the theories of Newton, >Maxwell and Einstein; No, they're not. It's not even an issue. >but in fact they are dished up a mix of their >ideas with the ideas of anonymous others. That's what science is about. It's a cumulative, ongoing effort to understand the world. Many people make contributions towards that understanding. The scientist who invents something completely new out of whole cloth is the exception. >The confidence that one puts >in the presented ideas are based on the judgment of the mental >capacities of those scientists that the anons piggybacked on, together >with trust in the pretension of it all being "hard science". At least, >I was fooled that way, and it is evident that *a lot* of people are >thus being cheated. I think you have a mistaken view of science. The important thing about science is *not* the words of great scientists. It is the structure of the scientific theories and the experimental support for those theories. My confidence in Newtonian physics or relativity had nothing to do with belief in any scientist's "capacities". It was from understanding the material, and seeing how it "fit together", how it answered questions about how the world works, how it is supported by evidence. If you are basing your confidence in science on worship of particular *scientists*, then you are cheating yourself. >> It's funny, the various anti-relativity "dissidents" have exactly >> the wrong impression. They think that physicists today believe >> relativity out of some kind of Einstein worship. Nothing could >> be farther from the truth. > >Yes, exactly - and you *still* don't understand where they got that >wrong idea from? I don't know, but you seem to have a similar wrong view that science is about indoctrination. >> People believe relativity today because >> they've been studying it (and refining our understanding of it) for >> 100 years. Newton's physics has been studied for much longer. We >> understand these theories pretty well today, and we understand their >> power for describing the universe. >> >> If there were other beliefs or writings of Newton or Einstein that >> get much less attention today, then the chances are great that it's >> because they aren't that important, or they are wrong, or they've >> been replaced by clearer foundations. > >You greatly underestimate the role that indoctrination plays in human >teaching. It's a substitute for understanding. >> What I've tried to explain to Colp is the mathematical structure of >> Special Relativity as it is understood today. Not necessarily as >> it was understood by Einstein. The latter is not particularly interesting >> to me. Whether Newton believed in an absolute standard for rest is >> not particularly interesting to me. I'm interested in any arguments >> by people who *still* believe that there is evidence for the existence >> of an absolute standard for rest. > >The old arguments (Newton, Lorentz-Langevin) haven't changed, as they >are based on scientific observation that remains valid. This is getting tedious. If you have an argument in favor of an absolute standard of rest, then *you* present it. Don't send me on wild goose chases through history. You misled me with your references on Newton. You claimed that Newton argued in favor of an absolute standard of rest, and then when I actually looked at what Newton wrote, I saw that he made no such argument. >New, additional arguments are provided by quantum mechanics The case of quantum mechanics is puzzling, and I don't think the final word has been written on that subject, but as it is currently understood, quantum mechanics does not single out a preferred rest frame. All the predictions of quantum mechanics work just as well in any rest frame. There's a mismatch of argument styles here. You make claims, and you decline to argue in favor of them. I find that frustrating. You justify your style by saying that others have already made the arguments much better than you. But I can't have a discussion with people who are dead. I can't ask them what they meant. I can't propose counter-arguments to see how they respond. So I'm not going to argue with people long dead. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: harald on 12 Jul 2010 12:46 On Jul 12, 1:04 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > >On Jul 12, 12:36=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> I think that the phrase "correct information" means something different > >> to you than it does to me. The theories of classical mechanics, > >> elecromagnetism, and relativity have developed since the times of > >> Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. I believe that those subjects are better > >> understood by physicists today than they were by the people that created > >> the subjects. You might think that by definition that's impossible; > >> if people understand something different than Newton did, then what > >> they are doing is not Newtonian mechanics, it's something different. > >> Fine. It's something different, that's *derived* from Newton's physics, > >> and is still generally called "Newtonian physics" in his honor. > > >That's fine, if it really were presented like that. Which textbooks > >are that honest? > > The textbooks that I used, for instance, were *physics* textbooks, > not *history* textbooks. There was no claim made that what was being > presented was verbatim what Newton or Einstein wrote. Exactly. How many of them warn the students that some of the presented theory is significantly different from the original theories? > >Students are being fooled into thinking that there > >are presented with what essentially are the theories of Newton, > >Maxwell and Einstein; > > No, they're not. It's not even an issue. Sure it's an issue - there wouldn't be as many cranks around if they had not received misleading information to start with. Did you see the university link that Pentcho came up with? I'll translate it for you: According to Newton's mechanics, "the traveler on the train who emits light waves measures the speed of light, while on the platform we measure the sum of the speed of light and that of the train. But according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of light is constant no matter where the observer." Regretfully, this is rather typical and (although he noticed this one) Pentcho doesn't manage to "repair" the information in his head. How many people find their way through the mixture of correct information, misleading information, sneaky omissions and outright lies? > >but in fact they are dished up a mix of their > >ideas with the ideas of anonymous others. > > That's what science is about. It's a cumulative, ongoing effort to > understand the world. Many people make contributions towards that > understanding. The scientist who invents something completely new > out of whole cloth is the exception. Yes - the crime is mostly the careful omission of key information: not telling "the whole truth", as emphasized in court. > >The confidence that one puts > >in the presented ideas are based on the judgment of the mental > >capacities of those scientists that the anons piggybacked on, together > >with trust in the pretension of it all being "hard science". At least, > >I was fooled that way, and it is evident that *a lot* of people are > >thus being cheated. > > I think you have a mistaken view of science. The important thing > about science is *not* the words of great scientists. We agree on that; reporting the ideas of the inventors of theories in order to allow the students to fairly compare those with the ideas of others, DOES matter. And later they can't say that they have been f*cked with. > It is the structure of the scientific theories and the experimental support > for those theories. Yes indeed. Now, if we ask for a presentation of those theories, who makes a selection of the experimental support, and for whose theories? For example, did you know from a textbook discussion why Newton's bucket experiment is decisive for his theory of motion? Apparently not. > My confidence in Newtonian physics or relativity had nothing to > do with belief in any scientist's "capacities". It was from understanding > the material, and seeing how it "fit together", how it answered questions > about how the world works, how it is supported by evidence. That's a false confidence: in fact you *reject* Newtonian physics at its basis, although it partly answers how the world works and it is supported by his bucket experiment. How many textbooks discuss it? > If you are basing your confidence in science on worship of particular > *scientists*, then you are cheating yourself. Good! I have some confidence in the scientific method - it's as good as we can do. Thus I appreciate the explanations of experts who developed successful theories, and compare them with the explanations by others. Very smart people are often (but not always) smarter. > >> It's funny, the various anti-relativity "dissidents" have exactly > >> the wrong impression. They think that physicists today believe > >> relativity out of some kind of Einstein worship. Nothing could > >> be farther from the truth. > > >Yes, exactly - and you *still* don't understand where they got that > >wrong idea from? > > I don't know, but you seem to have a similar wrong view that science > is about indoctrination. Indoctrination is the enemy of science - and a dangerous one. > >> People believe relativity today because > >> they've been studying it (and refining our understanding of it) for > >> 100 years. Newton's physics has been studied for much longer. We > >> understand these theories pretty well today, and we understand their > >> power for describing the universe. > > >> If there were other beliefs or writings of Newton or Einstein that > >> get much less attention today, then the chances are great that it's > >> because they aren't that important, or they are wrong, or they've > >> been replaced by clearer foundations. > > >You greatly underestimate the role that indoctrination plays in human > >teaching. > > It's a substitute for understanding. Exactly. Do you find indoctrination acceptable in scientific education? > >> What I've tried to explain to Colp is the mathematical structure of > >> Special Relativity as it is understood today. Not necessarily as > >> it was understood by Einstein. The latter is not particularly interesting > >> to me. Whether Newton believed in an absolute standard for rest is > >> not particularly interesting to me. I'm interested in any arguments > >> by people who *still* believe that there is evidence for the existence > >> of an absolute standard for rest. > > >The old arguments (Newton, Lorentz-Langevin) haven't changed, as they > >are based on scientific observation that remains valid. > > This is getting tedious. If you have an argument in favor of > an absolute standard of rest, then *you* present it. I have few other arguments than the ones that you can read from Newton, Langevin (SRT), Hardy (QM), etc. What's the use to add my own ones, if you can't understand their examples which are not very different from mine? And what's the use of trying to explain better on a NG what others have carefully formulated for printed publications? But NG's are great for helping others find the information that they are looking for. > Don't send > me on wild goose chases through history. You misled me with your > references on Newton. You claimed that Newton argued in favor of > an absolute standard of rest, and then when I actually looked at > what Newton wrote, I saw that he made no such argument. He called it "absolute space" and argued for it from the bucket experiment, in the "Scholium" that I referred you to; there is no real substitute for pondering over his arguments yourself. > >New, additional arguments are provided by quantum mechanics > > The case of quantum mechanics is puzzling, and I don't think the > final word has been written on that subject, but as it is currently > understood, quantum mechanics does not single out a preferred rest > frame. All the predictions of quantum mechanics work just as well > in any rest frame. Right! I provided in this thread a link to when those working in that field came to realize that quantum mechanics implies the existence of what you (and by chance Hardy too) call a "preferred" frame - although just as with Newton and Lorentz, it isn't preferred for physical phenomena. The simple argument is that causality must not be broken - except if for example we live inside "Matrix" or so, for than anything is possible. ;-) > There's a mismatch of argument styles here. You make claims, > and you decline to argue in favor of them. I find that frustrating. I prefer to give factual statements and if asked, provide quality references for information; arguing about such things is mostly just a waste of time and effort. Of course, when someone really doesn't understand certain passages in some paper, I am willing to help if I can. But you appear to be highly intelligent, so that you will be OK - or so I thought - with little more than the useful references themselves. > You justify your style by saying that others have already made the > arguments much better than you. But I can't have a discussion with > people who are dead. I can't ask them what they meant. I can't > propose counter-arguments to see how they respond. So I'm not going > to argue with people long dead. Reading their arguments and comparing them with those of others is good enough for me; and how much do you argue with your textbooks? Harald
From: Koobee Wublee on 12 Jul 2010 12:51
On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > In cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, the CMBR dipole=0 frame > is also the cosmological frame in which the dust particles (galaxies) are at > rest, due to the way the CMBR was generated. This is merely a symmetry of the > manifold, and no "aether" is present, and the cosmological frame does not > participate in the dynamics. The FLRW metric is one of the infinite solutions to the field equations that just will predict anything possible. Of course, the self-styled physicists would call that the greatest thing since slice bread, but true scholars of physics would dismiss all that as nonsense. Another flaw of the FLRW metric is that it does not degenerate into Newtonian law of gravity. Jumping conclusions too soon, the self-styled physicists would try to concoct self-comforting fantasies about why the FLRW metric does not have to degenerate into Newtonian physics. What a joke! <shrug> The fact is that there is a dipole=0 frame in CMBR. Is that the frame of reference predicted by all mathematical models, except the Galilean transforms where light is modeled as classical particles, explaining the null results of the MMX? <shrug> |