colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Prentice Halls Federal Taxation Individuals 2011 Solutions manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: Koobee Wublee on 23 Jun 2010 15:41 On Jun 23, 9:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 10:44 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 2:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Light propagates with respect to the aether. > > > > The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the > > > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. This means > > > the aether is mostly connected to the matter which is the Earth. This > > > means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than > > > it is to the train. > > > > Three observers on the train with clocks all standing at M'. The > > > observer walking the clock from M' to B' is walking against the 'flow' > > > of aether and their clock ticks slower than the clock at M' and the > > > clock being walked to A'. The clock being walked to A' ticks faster > > > than the clock at M' and the clock being walked to B'. Once the clocks > > > are at A', M', and B' they all tick at the same rate because they > > > exist under the same amount of aether pressure. > > > > Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at M on the > > > embankment simultaneously. > > > > When the lightning strikes occur the clock at B' reads 12:00:01 and > > > the clock at A' reads 12:00:03. The light from the lightning strike at > > > B/B' arrives at M' and then the light from A/A' arrives at M'. When > > > the observers on the embankment get back together they all conclude > > > the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at > > > A/A'. > > > > Everything is with respect to the aether. Including the rate at which > > > the clocks tick and the determination light travels at 'c'. > > > The Michelson-Morely experiment didn't detect any motion relative to > > the theoretical aether, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. > > If the aether coupling with the earth was large enough, the measurable > > effect could be less than experimental error. Are there any > > experimental results which would support the aether theory > > There are no experimental results that would support the aether theory > over relativity, despite attempts to search for them. > > There are experimental results other than the Michelson Morley > experiment that rule out an aether strongly entrained by the Earth. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 20:03 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:11b743a4-8730-45c2-a6b3-1868be6c14b9(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 24, 4:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> There are no experimental results that would support the aether theory >> over relativity, despite attempts to search for them. > > Evidence of something is not limited to direct physical observations - > a logical argument based of knowledge of the physical world is a form > of evidence. Observation is a form of experiment. And of course, one need to use logical and mathematical argument to go from experimental data to a theory (or vice versa) > An argument which supports that theory is the symmetric twin paradox There is no paradox. You get equal aging from EVERY frame of reference. > can be avoided by positing the existence of a preferred frame of > reference, which is a concept similar to that of the aether. There is nothing to avoid. > The usual argument against the twin paradox is that frame-jumping is > an error, but frame jumping is not prohibited by the premises of SR. Only when you do the math correctly. You ignored an important part of SR .. relativity of simultaneity. [snip]
From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 20:05 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:d9234440-61a8-4ac0-b628-b4a7e36a69cc(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 24, 4:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 23, 11:28 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > In the symmetric twin paradox, SR predicts that each twin will see the >> > other's clock run slow, but it must be seen to run fast in order to >> > that the twin's clocks read the same time at the end of the experiment >> > and avoid the paradox. >> >> No, SR does NOT say that. > > (copied from a previous post) > > In the symmetric twin paradox, SR predicts that each twin will see the > other's clock run slow, Yes .. it will > but it must be seen to run fast in order to > that the twin's clocks read the same time at the end of the experiment > and avoid the paradox. It does .. during the turnaround. If we make that instantaneous, then the other clock will jump forward in time from being still on its way to the turnaround to when it is partway back. > The premises of SR specify observed time dilation, never time > compression, so the paradox cannot be avoided. You ignore the relativity of simultaneity > <quote> > 2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an > elapsed time of T = t square-root(1-(v/c)^2). > </quote> Yes it will .. there is more to SR than time dilation.
From: mpc755 on 23 Jun 2010 20:45 On Jun 23, 11:44 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Light propagates with respect to the aether. > > > The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the > > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. This means > > the aether is mostly connected to the matter which is the Earth. This > > means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than > > it is to the train. > > > Three observers on the train with clocks all standing at M'. The > > observer walking the clock from M' to B' is walking against the 'flow' > > of aether and their clock ticks slower than the clock at M' and the > > clock being walked to A'. The clock being walked to A' ticks faster > > than the clock at M' and the clock being walked to B'. Once the clocks > > are at A', M', and B' they all tick at the same rate because they > > exist under the same amount of aether pressure. > > > Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at M on the > > embankment simultaneously. > > > When the lightning strikes occur the clock at B' reads 12:00:01 and > > the clock at A' reads 12:00:03. The light from the lightning strike at > > B/B' arrives at M' and then the light from A/A' arrives at M'. When > > the observers on the embankment get back together they all conclude > > the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at > > A/A'. > > > Everything is with respect to the aether. Including the rate at which > > the clocks tick and the determination light travels at 'c'. > > The Michelson-Morely experiment didn't detect any motion relative to > the theoretical aether, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. > If the aether coupling with the earth was large enough, the measurable > effect could be less than experimental error. Are there any > experimental results which would support the aether theory? Every double slit experiment ever performed is evidence of aether. The moving particle has an associated aether wave. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Placing detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. Why is the C-60 molecule always detected exiting a single slit? Because it always enters and exits a single slit, duh! The Casimir Effect is evidence of the aether. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. Each plate displaces the aether outside of the other plate. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the plates. The pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the plates forces the plates together. The observed behaviors in the Casimir Effect are caused by gravity. Gravity is evidence of aether. Gravity is evidence of aether displacement. An atomic bomb is evidence of aether. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the neighboring maether is energy. When matter converts to aether it displaces the neighboring maether. This displacement of the neighboring maether is energy. This displacement of the neighboring maether is evidence of aether.
From: Daryl McCullough on 24 Jun 2010 06:42
colp says... >Coordinate systems are arbitrary conventions which are not required by >the premises of SR. Right. But simultaneity (deciding when two different events take place at the same time) is coordinate-dependent. >The paradox isn't about events that are simultaneous because it >occurs when the twins return to the point that they started from. It's *not* a paradox. Every inertial coordinate system predicts exactly the same results for the answer to the question: how old is each question when they reunite? Different coordinate systems only predict different answers to questions of the form: Is event E1 simultaneous with event E2. >> Disagreement between coordinate systems is *not* a paradox. > >In the symmetric twin paradox, SR predicts that each twin will see the >other's clock run slow, No, it does not. It predicts that each twin's clock runs slow as measured in the coordinate system in which the other twin is at rest. What it predicts for what each twin sees is the pattern of delayed and rushed signals that I've been over. >but it must be seen to run fast in order to that the twin's >clocks read the same time at the end of the experiment and >avoid the paradox. I went through that. In the symmetric case, if each twin is sending out signals to the other twin at the rate of once per second (as measured by the sender's clock), then those signals will be received delayed (less than one per second) during part of the journey, they will be received rushed (more than one per second) during the other part. If you add them up in the symmetric case, then the *average* rate of pulses received from the other twin is exactly one per second. There is no paradox. There are two different ways of looking at it: (1) In terms of coordinates, and (2) in terms of what is literally seen by each twin. Pick one or the other, but there is no contradiction in either case. But in the case of what each twin literally sees, it is not true that each twin sees the other twin's clocks slowed down. >The premises of SR specify observed time dilation, never time >compression, so the paradox cannot be avoided. The premises talk about time dilation as measured in an *INERTIAL* coordinate system. The twins are *NOT* at rest in an inertial coordinate system. If you stick to any specific inertial coordinate system, the time dilation formula correctly predicts the ages of the two twins when they get back together. The only way to get a contradiction out of it is if you erroneously pretend that each twin is at rest in an inertial coordinate system throughout the journey. That is not the case, and applying the rules for an inertial coordinate system is just making a mathematical mistake. Blaming that mistake on SR is just wrong. ><quote> >2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an >elapsed time of T = t square-root(1-(v/c)^2). ></quote> You left out the premise: AS MEASURED in any inertial coordinate system. This rule is not talking about what a twin sees, it's talking about what is computed to be true, as expressed in an inertial coordinate system. >> >Since paradoxes do not exist in reality the only remaining conclusion >> >is that there is a preferred frame reference. >> >> Arbitrarily calling one frame the preferred frame makes no difference, >> whatsoever, to the issue of whether there is a paradox or not. > >The preferred frame of reference is not determined arbitrarily. Then how are you proposing to determine it? What experiment determines which twin is *REALLY* at rest at what times? Because the experimental results are the same for *EVERY* coordinate system. >> In the twin paradox, you have the paradoxical situation where >> (1) In the coordinate system of the stationary twin, the traveling >> twin is younger. >> (2) In the coordinate system of the traveling twin, the stationary >> twin is older. >> >> You could introduce a preferred frame, and *arbitrarily* say that >> the stationary twin's coordinate system is the preferred one, and >> that the traveling twin's coordinate system is bogus. How does >> that change anything? You want to call one twin's perspective >> correct, and the other twin's perspective deluded? Fine. So >> you change the words, to: >> >> (1) The traveling twin is *actually* younger than the stationary >> twin. >> >> (2) The stationary twin *appears* to be younger then the traveling >> twin, when viewed from a bogus coordinate system. >> >> That change is just words. It has made *no* difference to the >> physics. > >The issue can be resolved by eliminating the paradoxical cases What paradoxical case are you talking about? The paradox is that according to two different coordinate systems: each coordinate system measures clocks at rest in the other coordinate system to be running slow. That's just a fact. Calling one coordinate system "preferred" doesn't change that fact. >and deducing that the preferred frame of reference in the case of the >symmetric twins is the frame of reference in which the twins journey's >are symmetric. You can choose *ANY* frame whatsoever, and run a symmetric twin paradox for that frame. So your notion of "preferred" frame would lead to the conclusion that *every* frame is a preferred frame. That really *would* be a contradiction. Let's consider once again three frames: F1 = the frame of the Earth F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v in the +x direction relative to F1. F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v in the -x direction relative to F1. Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox from the point of view of frame F1 *and* F2. Introduce 3 twins: Twin A travels 100 seconds (according to his clock) at rest in frame F2, turns around, and travels 100 seconds (according to his clock) at rest in frame F3. Twin B travels 100 seconds in frame F3, and then 100 seconds in frame F4 Twin C travels 100 seconds in frame F4, then 100 seconds in frame F1. Twin D travels 100 seconds in frame F1, then 100 seconds in frame F4. So A&B are symmetric twins from the point of view of frame F1, while C&D are symmetric twins from the point of view of frame F2. So which frame is preferred? >> One can state the principle of relativity in the following >> way: >> >> There is no experiment that can allow us to determine which >> coordinate systems is preferred, and which coordinate system >> is bogus. > >You can't prove a claim by negation. In other words, the fact that you >haven't detected something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you make such a detection, that means that SR is *WRONG*. But until then, you haven't proved that SR is wrong. You don't prove theories of physics correct. You test whether they are correct by performing experiments. If the experiments contradict the predictions, then the theory if wrong. >> Unless you have such an experiment, we must always consider >> the possibility that whatever coordinate system we are using >> happens to be the bogus one. So, for practical purposes, we >> need a physics that tells how things look from the point of >> view of a bogus coordinate system, without knowing what the >> preferred coordinate system is. > >Need implies a threat. What is the threat? That's a bit paranoid. We need a physics that describes how things work for *us*. We don't know whether we are in the "preferred frame" and we may never know. >> Special Relativity *is* that physics. > >No, it is a theory which can predict paradoxical outcomes. No, the theory that predicts paradoxical outcomes is a theory of your own making, where you ignore the SR distinction between inertial coordinate systems and noninertial coordinate systems. >I'm not saying that we have no way of ever finding out what it is. Well, none of your arguments suggest any such possibility. >> The theory of the preferred frame is *identical* to SR, in all >> of its testable predictions. > >No it isn't. Give an example of a testable prediction that would be different. >SR predicts that two observers moving at relativistic >speeds relative to each other will observe the time dilation of the >other. No, it predicts that each observer will be measured to be slowed by using the coordinate system in which the other twin is at rest. That will *still* be true in the theory of the preferred frame. If time dilation works in *any* coordinate system, then it will work in *every* inertial coordinate system. >The theory of the preferred frame says that if the velocity of >one observer with respect to the preferred frame is the negative of >the velocity of the other with respect to the preferred frame, then >the observers will not observe each other's time to be dilated. Well, that's just false. It is inconistent to assume that. If one inertial coordinate system has time dilation, then you can prove mathematically that *every* coordinate system will have it. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |