Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
It seems that I have not been sufficiently clear.
Let me try again.
GR has been subject to a large number of tests, both experimental and observational.
It has passed all such test to date, with flying colours. (The only apparent exception that I know of is the muon thing which you referenced in another thread).
|
Not sure how we are jumping from SR to GR here but I'll let that be for now.
Quote:
You are claiming that no test to date (other than, perhaps, the muon one) has examined some 'absolute frame' idea which you have.
I - and others - have asked you about the ways in which this idea of yours might be tested, in principle.
So far, you have not answered how such an idea might be tested, in principle.
|
1 - I would not say that I have some idea about an absolute frame. I do have a strong intuition that it is more suitable (fits data) better than SR's relative veloicty with reciprocity.
It would seem to me that if one begins to look at test data which can be taken in brief periods to limit vector change due to earth's rotation, orbit, etc or experiments that could be articulated so as to maintain a cosmic vector, could determine if there is an underlying anisotropy.
Keep in mind this would be a small change in data due to any absolute motion and would have a signal to noise ratio of several million to one.
Accelerated particles in a linear accelerator decay times might be one possible test. The applied energy, vector, etc would have to be meticulously recorded to see any motion to the CMB (or any other anisotropy.
Quote:
I have no idea whether any - or all - the hundreds of tests of GR done to date would show inconsistency with your idea of an 'absolute frame' or not.
One key reason I have no such idea is that - it seems to me - your idea produces no (quantitative) predictions.
|
Of course it does. It would predict that you should find equivlent deviation in SR data based on orientation during the test. The magnitude of such deviation would be less than 5E-7 of the primary signal.
For example. Given a particle that is accelerated to 0.999c in the local frame. If you now consider that the solar motion to the CMB is 0.001c then by velocity addition the motion would be 0.999002c, not c.
The differance between 0.999c and 0.999002c is gamma=22.36627204 and 22.38868 or 0.1% but that is only when orientation is at its maximum the affect would exist between 0.00% and this maximum.
Quote:
|
We'll find the relevant papers which detail the methods and results, and you can supply us with predictions - from your idea of an 'absolute frame' - of what the experimental results would be (or rather, would have been). We can then see the extent to which that test was (or was not) inconsistent with your idea. OK?
|
I sincerely doubt you will have information about any test which can determine orientation during the test and for which the same test can be replicated but at some different orientation.
If so then it would be interesting to see such data but I don't think it exists.
Quote:
|
Well, who can tell? Without your quantitative predictions ...Without any indication of what sort of motion any piece of test equipment, or spot on the Earth, has (wrt any 'absolute frame'), how can you analyse any data from any experiment or observation (to determine whether there is any 'motion wrt the absolute frame' or not)?In respect of what?
|
Precisely. that is why specific testing must be done to insure orientation to the measured ansitropy is recorded and compared to the same test at different orientations.
Quote:
|
SR's predictions re "length contraction" are clear (aren't they?), and they are beyond our ability to test, today (aren't they?).
|
Yes and if unfalisifiable then the theory does not meet the standard to be called theory. It is a hypotheses.
Quote:
"reciprocity" seems to be an idea no one else who has posted to these threads seems to understand (except to the extent that it's a non-issue - there are no inconsistencies). Perhaps you could have another go at stating, more clearly, what the observable effects of this "reciprocity" would be?I suggest that the onus is on the claimants - in this case, anyone making a claim about an 'absolute frame' or 'reciprocity' - to show that these claims are consistent with all good, pertinent experimental and observational results.
A good place to start would be a clear, quantitative prediction of the results of an experiment or observation that we could, in principle, carry out today, with the technology we have (today).
|
Reciprocity is inherent in the equivelence of inertial frames. That is the idea that since you cannot tell (ignoring modern day capacity to actually measure such motion to the CMB) which is moving, any relative velocity is considered to be in the other frame and your frame is at rest.
That is clock "A" is at rest and clock "B" has a relative ve4loicty of 0.866c such that gamma=2 and "B" ticks at only one tick per two ticks of "A".
But then according to the equivelence of inertial frames principle "B" is at rest and it is "A" that has all motion and hence "A" must be ticking at the rate of one tick per two ticks of "B".
As a matter of perception due to some illusion of motion this can "Appear" to be the case but that I contend is not time dilation. This is na observatinal issue and has nothing to do with the tick rate of the clock and time it is accumulating. True time dilation is only that which is demonstrated by an accumulation of different amounts of time on each clock when subsequently compared in the same frame.