Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: colp on 10 Jul 2010 18:19 On Jul 11, 4:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 1:56 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 10, 7:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 8:59 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 7, 5:43 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 8:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 3:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The problem, you see, is that the comic-book statement you are using > > > > > > > > > as your launching point belongs in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > > > > It's not a comic book statement any more than Einstein's statement > > > > > > > > that a moving clock lags behind a stationary clock is a comic book > > > > > > > > statement. > > > > > > > > Not so. Einstein's statement included things that you have discounted. > > > > > > > I haven't discounted them. > > > > > > > > For example, he makes note of specific events, rather than just making > > > > > > > the general statement that "moving clocks" run slow. > > > > > > > The description of the specific events only serves to illustrate that > > > > > > it is the moving clock that runs slow compared to the stationary > > > > > > clock. > > > > > > Then you have misunderstood what he said. The EVENTS do more than > > > > > that. > > > > > How, exactly? > > > So your claim regarding the events is baseless, right? > The bottom line is that in Einstein's example it is not an oversimplification to say that the moving clock runs slow. Calling that description a "comic-book statement" is like an ad hominem where the attack is against the form of the statement rather than the writer. > > > > > > > Furthermore, he > > > > > > > makes EXPLICIT mention of the statement that the clocks at points A > > > > > > > and B are initially synchronized IN THE K FRAME. > > > > > > > Assuming that they weren't synchonized in my general description of > > > > > > "the moving clock runs slow" would be arbitrary and illogical. > > > > > > They are synchronized in the K frame. They are not synchronized in the > > > > > K' frame. This is essential and cannot be dismissed. > > > > > If they are not synchronized in the K' frame, then the K frame becomes > > > > the preferred frame of reference, which contradicts Einstein's first > > > > postulate. > > > > Why? Two clocks being synchronized or not synchronized do not > > > determine a preferred frame. > > > Yes they do. By choosing a frame in your theoretical example which > > corresponds to the actual preferred frame, your example gives results > > which conform to reality. If you choose an alternate frame, paradoxes > > become apparent. > > What? No. Actually paradoxes do become apparent. In my four-clock extension of Einstein's two-clock example, SR predicts the same two clocks are slower than each other depending on whether the observation is make from frame K or from frame K'. > Do you know what "preferred frame" means? If so, tell me what you > think it means. What I think it means is irrelevant in the context of showing a paradox. What is relevant is what SR says that it means, specifically that a preferred frame has properties which correspond to the idea of absolute rest, or is a frame in which the laws of mechanics hold good but laws of electrodynamics and optics no longer hold good. 1. "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest". 2. "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." From "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > > In Einstein's original example the stationary frame > > is the preferred frame, as is the case for SR measurements made near > > the Earth. > > What ever gave you the impression that Einstein took the Earth frame > to be preferred? He used the word stationary. In common language stationary means at rest relative to Earth's surface, as typically observers are at rest relative to that frame. > > > > > > A preferred frame is one in which the LAWS OF PHYSICS are different > > > than in other frames. > > > No, there is more to it that that. Einstien's first postulate assumes > > that: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics > > possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" > > Sorry, but that is a conclusion FROM the postulate. No, there is no indication in the source text that either part of the first postulate is a derivation of the other part. > The meaning of > "preferred frame" as used by physicists is what I described. Irrelevant. What is important is what Einstein described, not the qualifications and ammendments made by physicists in order to render the theory useful. > > > > > If this postulate is true then you have no basis for making your > > observations from the stationary frame; i.e it would make no > > difference whether you made your observations from frame K or from > > frame K'. > > Nor does it make any difference. The laws of physics take the same > form from either frame. The fact that the laws take the same form does not mean that there is no preferred frame. > > This does NOT entail that if clocks are synchronized in K, then they > are also synchronized in K'. That is not what the principle of > relativity means. Straw man. The point is that if Einstein's first postulate is true, then it is possible for the clocks to be synchronized in either frame. For you to argue that they can be synchronized in K but not in K' implies that you do not hold Einstein's first postulate to be true.
From: harald on 11 Jul 2010 17:56 On Jul 5, 1:10 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > > > > > >On Jul 2, 4:25=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >> harald says... > > >> [quoting Newton] > > >> >"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and > >> >effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from > >> >the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which > >> >those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation > >> >of our senses. [...] > >> >But how we are to collect the true motions from their causes, effects, > >> >and apparent differences; and, vice versa, how from the motions, > >> >either true or apparent, we may come to the knowledge of their causes > >> >and effects, shall be explained more at large in the following tract. > >> >For to this end it was that I composed it." > > >> It's not completely clear what he means by "true motions" and "apparent > >> motions", but if he meant that there was an absolute standard of rest, th= > >en > >> he was just mistaken---there is no evidence of such a thing. > > >Evidently the education system withheld this information from you, > > What information? The fact that Newton said the above things? The postulates of Newton's theory of mechanics. > Why is that relevant? Why is correct information relevant? Why are you trying to explain to Colp the correct postulates of SRT, if such things are completely irrelevant? Why not just dish up stories that you like, as others have done to you? [..] > What's important is the physics. > And the physics of Newton has no need for any absolute rest frame. Then the physics of Einstein has no need of any postulates either; you can just give the LT and be done with it. Physics students with faith in science make perfect victims, because most are very gullible. > >just as it also happened to me. But he does present evidence there. > >And it's not just a detail, but the postulate to which Newton's > >equations of motions relate. > > If you believe that Newtonian physics requires an absolute standard > of rest, then why don't *YOU* post an argument to that effect? I don't try to sell Newton's theory - he did that, and I gave you a link. > The > fact that Newton thought so is not relevant. Not to me, anyway. What's > relevant is the argument and the evidence, not what famous people thought > about it. Exactly - and surely you can read. Harald
From: harald on 11 Jul 2010 18:01 On Jul 2, 4:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:31 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 2, 1:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > > > > > > > > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an > > > > > > > > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's > > > > > > > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > > > > > > > It IS an over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks > > > > > > > running slow. > > > > > > > Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> > > > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > > > not required. > > > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > > > postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a > > > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > > > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > > > discover > > > any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that > > > the > > > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > > > properties > > > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > > > as has > > > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > > > laws of > > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > > > for which the > > > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > > > purport > > > of which will hereafter be called the Principle of Relativity) to > > > the status > > > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > > > apparently > > > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > > > propagated in empty > > > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > > > motion of the > > > emitting body." > > > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) > > > > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > > > inertial frame of reference. > > > 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? ;-) Harald
From: Daryl McCullough on 11 Jul 2010 18:12 harald says... >stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >Why is correct information relevant? Why are you trying to explain to >Colp the correct postulates of SRT, if such things are completely >irrelevant? Why not just dish up stories that you like, as others have >done to you? Newtonian physics has no need for a preferred frame of rest. The fact that Newton may have believed otherwise is not particularly relevant for the study of physics, although it may be relevant for the history of science. >[..] >> What's important is the physics. >> And the physics of Newton has no need for any absolute rest frame. > >Then the physics of Einstein has no need of any postulates either; you >can just give the LT and be done with it. >Physics students with faith in science make perfect victims, because >most are very gullible. I can't make any sense of that claim. I have no idea what you are talking about, and you don't seem to be very forthcoming, either. So I'll just let it drop. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 11 Jul 2010 18:36
harald says... >Why is correct information relevant? Why are you trying to explain to >Colp the correct postulates of SRT, if such things are completely >irrelevant? Why not just dish up stories that you like, as others have >done to you? 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. In my view, an argument made by Newton in the 1600s may or may not be relevant today. Physicists are not prophets, their words are not holy scripture. We don't need to believe something because Newton or Einstein believed it. 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. 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. 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. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |