Prev: 0' notation
Next: LTE
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jul 2010 12:21
On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Properties of a preferred frame:

In theories that apply the principle of relativity to inertial motion,
physics is the same in all inertial frames, and is even the same in all
frames under the general principle of relativity.

In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a
special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics
might appear to be identifiably different from those in other frames.
From: Sam Wormley on 17 Jul 2010 11:47
On 7/17/10 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jul 16, 12:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> Properties of a preferred frame:
>>
>> In theories that apply the principle of relativity to inertial motion,
>> physics is the same in all inertial frames, and is even the same in all
>> frames under the general principle of relativity.
>>
>> In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a
>> special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics
>> might appear to be identifiably different from those in other frames.
>
> So what are those special properties for the preferred frame??

Essentially there are no preferred reference frames, Ken. There
might be al locus of points that some frame could be along that
could show two events separated in time and space that appear
to be simultaneous, but there are no special properties.

> In John W Patterson's letter to the Tribune of July 7, he
> comments on the book, "The Privileged Planet", by
> Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards. John's letter was
> well crafted illuminating the bigger issue of the
> creationist movement, provided references and "keywords"
> that allow interested people to find out more, and he
> tied the story to Iowa! Very well done!

> I too, have read the book. I gave my copy to an emeritus
> professor of chemistry friend of mine, cautioning that he
> should not read it if he didn't want to raise his blood
> pressure. Some weeks later he wrote a scathing "book
> report" to me by email. He was disgusted!

> For example, concerning the chapter on the Copernican
> Principle, he wrote, "The authors set up a straw man
> imbuing the Copernican Principle with a number of
> ridiculous attributes that they then disparage and in so
> doing imply that they are destroying a scientific theory.
> Irritating rubbish!"

> The Copernican Principle is the philosophical statement
> that no "special" observers should be proposed. The term
> originated in the paradigm shift from the Aristotelian
> model of the heavens, which placed Earth at the center
> of the Solar system because it appears that everything
> revolved around Earth.

> The dictionary defines "principle" as
> 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of
> democracy.
> 2. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a
> man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or
> ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on
> principle rather than expediency.
> 3. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural
> phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of
> jet propulsion.

> To be clear, principles in physics, are ideas having the
> ring of truth. But they are not mathematical theories or
> laws that can be tested empirically such as Einstein's
> Theory of Relativity. However, they do offer guidance in
> sniffing out the Laws of nature.

> The Copernican Principle is one of the most successful
> scientific hypotheses in the history of science. No
> serious scientific theories are even proposed that
> violate the Copernican Principle.

No special frames!

From: Sam Wormley on 17 Jul 2010 12:03
On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Properties of a preferred frame:

Ken neither special relativity, nor general relativity proposes
or uses any special (or preferred frames). For some reason you
have created in your mind a need for preferred frames, because
you do not understand the concept of relativity of simultaneity.

________________


Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase �relativity of simultaneity� as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".


From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jul 2010 23:18
On 7/18/10 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jul 17, 12:03 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> Properties of a preferred frame:
>>
>> Ken neither special relativity, nor general relativity proposes
>> or uses any special (or preferred frames).
>
> Sure....SR adopts the exclusive properties of the preferred frame to
> derive its math. LET also uses the preferred frame to derive its math.
> That's why SR and LET have the same math.

SR posits that all frames are relative.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>> For some reason you
>> have created in your mind a need for preferred frames, because
>> you do not understand the concept of relativity of simultaneity.
>>
>> ________________
>>
>> Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
>> and reference frames
>>
>> Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
>> Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
>>
>> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
>> of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
>> tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
>> reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
>> results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
>> academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
>> simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
>> frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
>> a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
>> and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
>>
>> See:http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>>
>> VII. CONCLUSION
>>
>> "This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
>> students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
>> role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
>> physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
>> unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
>> whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
>> the phrase �relativity of simultaneity� as implying that the
>> simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
>> the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
>> of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
>> observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
>> of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
>> confront the startling ideas of special relativity".
>

From: Hayek on 20 Jul 2010 07:15
Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> Properties of a preferred frame:
>
> Ken neither special relativity, nor general
> relativity proposes or uses any special (or preferred
> frames).

Sam, if you have physics that are described by the gamma
factor, and c as a speed limit, then this absolute frame
is perfectly hidden from observation.

"Hidden from observation" is not equal to "does not exist."

> For some reason you have created in your mind a need
> for preferred frames, because you do not understand
> the concept of relativity of simultaneity.

I never saw or read a fruitful attempt to define
"simultaneity", which most probably means "at the same
time", and even worse, there is no generally accepted
definition of what "time" is.

So "relativity of simultaneity" is built on some
conception the Einsteinians had about time being a valid
fourth dimension. Thus enabling different observers to
be in a different time slice, in a different Now.

I worked on a model that does not see time as a
dimension. It is a 3d + motion model. We exist only in
the latest now, and inertia carries us to the successive
nows. If inertia is higher in some regions then motion
goes slower there, and everything there evolves slower.

Let us take two labs next to each other.
Thanks to some advanced technology were are able to
induce in the second lab, double the inertia as in the
first lab. It is as if gamma would be 1 for the first
lab and 2 for the second lab.

Clocks would run twice as fast in the first lab compared
to the second lab. But all motion would undergo this
higher inertia, so all biological processes would run
half speed, at least those at constant temperatures.

In such a situation, what does "simultaneous" mean ?

When the clocks in the labs point at the same time ?
(This will never happen, since one runs chronically slow)
Or when both events are in the same Now ?

> Student understanding of time in special relativity:
> simultaneity and reference frames
>
[...]
> See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>
> VII. CONCLUSION
>
> "This investigation has identified widespread
> difficulties that students have with the definition
> of the time of an event and the role of intelligent
> observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
> physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students
> in physics are unable to apply the construct of a
> reference frame in determining whether or not two
> events are simultaneous. Many students interpret the
> phrase �relativity of simultaneity� as implying that
> the simultaneity of events is determined by an
> observer on the basis of the reception of light
> signals. They often attribute the relativity of
> simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time
> for different observers. In this way, they reconcile
> statements of the relativity of simultaneity with a
> belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to confront
> the startling ideas of special relativity".

There is hope for mankind.

Uwe Hayek.



--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: 0' notation
Next: LTE