PD
Posts:
2,970
Registered:
5/25/05


Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted:
Jul 2, 2010 10:58 AM


On Jul 2, 3:31 am, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:25 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@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. The special group of reference systems are the inertial reference systems, which implies NOTHING about absolute rest.
> > As we know, Einstein wasn't satisfied with this himself, and he did a > last attempt with GRT. But there is no conflict of postulates, only a > poor match between a *suggestion* and a postulate. > > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) > > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > > A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is > > just as true to say that > > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity v. The > > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > > the other system is paradoxical. > > That is based on his suggestion 1. here above, which he did not follow > up for the 1905 theory: it was directly nullified by the restriction > (statement 2) to the special class of inertial coordinate systems. > Therefore the theory of Einstein and Lorentz was seen as a single > theory and called "special" or "restricted" relativity. > > However, Einstein did acknowledge that issue as a paradox (apparent > contradiction) of GRT. > > Harald Hide quoted text  > >  Show quoted text 

