SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 7 Jul 2010 09:41 SR is an incomplete aether theory. Here's why: 1. The principle of relativity (PoR) says that all inertial frames including the unique absolute rest frame of the aether are equaivalent. 2. This allows every SR observer to choose any frame to do physics and the rest frame of the aether is choosed because it is the simplest frame to do physics. 3. Choosing the aether frame to do physics allows every SR observer to claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame which are: All the clocks moving wrt to an SR observer are running slow and all the ruler moving wrt him are contracted. 4. However, choosing the aether frame to do physics is the reason why SR is incomplete. In real life all objects (including every SR observer)in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and the rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. Therefore an SR observer cannot claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the ruler moving wrt him are contracted. In order to make SR complete an SR observer must include the possibility that an observed clock can run at a faster rate than his clock. 5. IRT is a new theory of relativity. An IRT observer includes the possibilities that a clock moving wrt him can run fast by a factor of gamma or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma. Also an IRT observer posits that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt to him can be shorter by a factor of 1/gamma or longer by a factor of gamma. The standard for the light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical length. With these interpretation of time and length all the problems and paradoxes of SR are resolved. 6. A complete description of IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jul 2010 11:18 On 7/7/10 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > SR is an incomplete aether theory. There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and you should take the time to learn it, Seto. Hint: Special relativity does not postulate or use the concept of aether! What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html How do you add velocities in special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html Can special relativity handle acceleration? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
From: Igor on 7 Jul 2010 11:43 On Jul 7, 9:41 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > Here's why: > 1. The principle of relativity (PoR) says that all inertial frames > including the unique absolute rest frame of the aether are > equaivalent. > > 2. This allows every SR observer to choose any frame to do physics and > the rest frame of the aether is choosed because it is the simplest > frame to do physics. > > 3. Choosing the aether frame to do physics allows every SR observer to > claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame which are: All the > clocks moving wrt to an SR observer are running slow and all the ruler > moving wrt him are contracted. > > 4. However, choosing the aether frame to do physics is the reason why > SR is incomplete. In real life all objects (including every SR > observer)in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and the > rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the > clock. Therefore an SR observer cannot claim that all the clocks > moving wrt him are running slow and all the ruler moving wrt him are > contracted. In order to make SR complete an SR observer must include > the possibility that an observed clock can run at a faster rate than > his clock. > > 5. IRT is a new theory of relativity. An IRT observer includes the > possibilities that a clock moving wrt him can run fast by a factor of > gamma or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma. Also an IRT observer posits > that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt to him can be > shorter by a factor of 1/gamma or longer by a factor of gamma. The > standard for the light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick > is assumed to be its physical length. With these interpretation of > time and length all the problems and paradoxes of SR are resolved. > > 6. A complete description of IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto SR is not an aether theory. It got rid of the aether, pinhead.
From: PD on 7 Jul 2010 12:23 On Jul 7, 8:41 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > SR is an incomplete aether theory. You must be talking about a theory other than SR, because: > Here's why: > 1. The principle of relativity (PoR) says that all inertial frames > including the unique absolute rest frame of the aether are > equaivalent. The principle of equivalence explicitly says that there is no preferred frame. Your statement is equivalent to saying, "No man is better than any other man, including the man that is better than other men." > > 2. This allows every SR observer to choose any frame to do physics and > the rest frame of the aether is choosed because it is the simplest > frame to do physics. No, SR does NOT choose that frame. It uses any frame equally. > > 3. Choosing the aether frame to do physics allows every SR observer to > claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame which are: All the > clocks moving wrt to an SR observer are running slow and all the ruler > moving wrt him are contracted. That is not the exclusive property of the aether frame. That statement is one you made up. > > 4. However, choosing the aether frame to do physics is the reason why > SR is incomplete. In real life all objects (including every SR > observer)in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and the > rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the > clock. Therefore an SR observer cannot claim that all the clocks > moving wrt him are running slow and all the ruler moving wrt him are > contracted. In order to make SR complete an SR observer must include > the possibility that an observed clock can run at a faster rate than > his clock. > > 5. IRT is a new theory of relativity. An IRT observer includes the > possibilities that a clock moving wrt him can run fast by a factor of > gamma or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma. Also an IRT observer posits > that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt to him can be > shorter by a factor of 1/gamma or longer by a factor of gamma. The > standard for the light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick > is assumed to be its physical length. With these interpretation of > time and length all the problems and paradoxes of SR are resolved. > > 6. A complete description of IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jul 2010 13:13
On 7/7/10 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > SR is an incomplete aether theory. Einstein wrote in 1905: "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place". See: ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905 It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. 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 (1) 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. 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 (2) 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. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas and make his case... |