Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Jan 2006 13:08:02 -0800
GSS wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >Thanks, you were talking with Tom about trajectory transformations
> >a few days ago, so I got to studying that and arrived at it's
> >invariance.
> >
> >My reasoning is relavistically based.
> >
> >Let me somewhat loosely define trajectory as d(Radius)/d(time),
> >wrt two pseudo-particles like the Sun and Earth and use radar
> >ranging to produce a Time T, so that Radius = cT and
> >
> >trajectory == dT/dt = dT'/dt' , which is invariant.
> >
> >Meaning, using a retarded clock on the Sun compared to an Earth
> >clock gives the same trajectory.
>
> The point under discussion with Tom Roberts was the invalidity of the
> Principle of Relativity wherein all inertial frames of reference (K^1,
> K^2 etc.) in uniform relative motion are treated as equivalent for the
> application of all laws of physics and none of them can be treated as
> preferred (K0). I started my arguments by pointing out that
> Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF) can be treated as a
> relatively preferred frame. If we consider an inertial reference frame
> L moving at a uniform relative velocity of say 0.9c wrt BCRF then
> obviously we can not regard L to be equivalent to BCRF for the
> application of all laws of physics.
>
> I was told that L will be equivalent to BCRF in all respects. Then I
> pointed out that total energy and momentum of the solar system will
> be much more in L frame as compared to BCRF which will violate the
> law of conservation of total mass-energy content and total momentum.
> I was told that conservation of energy and momentum permits different
> values of energy and momentum in different inertial reference frames.
>
> Then I pointed out that the increased mass-energy content of the sun
> and the earth in L frame may change the gravitational force field and
> the increased momentum of the orbiting earth may change the dynamic
> trajectory of the earth around the sun. I was told that no sensible
> person will ever compute the dynamic trajectory of the earth around
> the sun in L frame because it will be too complicated. Right approach
> will be to compute the trajectory in BCRF and then transform it to
> the L frame by Lorentz transformation.
>
> You are referring to the invariant form of the trajectory in this
> sense, that is the earth's trajectory in BCRF when viewed from L
> frame will be seen as invariant. My point was that if we calculate
> the dynamic trajectory of the earth in the L frame from the changed
> values of the mass-energy content, gravitational field and the
> momentum of earth, we are bound to get a distorted trajectory and not
> the 'invariant' trajectory. I had written:
>
> "We can obtain the trajectory of earth around the sun in L
> coordinates by two methods. First by Lorentz transformation of its
> trajectory in BCRF and second by direct computation of the dynamic
> trajectory in L coordinates. However it is found that the two
> trajectories in L frame do not match. This illustrates the inadequacy
> and inequality of L frame as compared with BCRF. "
>
> GSS
Studied your post GSS.
Certainly there are convenient astronomical CS's like the
Copernicus solar centered, but there is no *physical*
reason to adopt that as an origin, ie. the measurements
aren't more accurate than using any other CS.
I doubt you understand yet the meaning of relativity if you
advance such notions.
Ken
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- From: vern
- Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- From: GSS
- Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- From: GSS
- Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- From: GSS
- Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- Prev by Date: Re: Triplet Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Triplet Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- Next by thread: Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|