Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

@layman,

Are you posting things you don't believe in? I took it from what you posted.

http://able2know.org/topic/301703-13#post-6073754

Concepts? - like LET which is a theory that there is an aether that the earth moves through and the ether is where true time occurs. SR proposes there is no ether but time is relative to observer. Your own source says Occam's razor supports SR since there is no evidence of any ether.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I took it from what you posted.

Then you know it's not a term I ever used. Even the source I quoted made it clear that the LET, as such, was a system of mechanics. SR stole part of the math for a separate theory of motion. SR did NOT even try to compete with the LET.

The very source I quote specifically says:

Quote:

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example).

There is a huge difference between what this author says the LET is "often treated as today" and the entire LET itself, get it?

I have made many of my own references in this thread to alternate theories of relative motion, but I have NEVER used, or referred to, LET.

Quote:

Your own source says Occam's razor supports SR since there is no evidence of any ether

.

"My own source?" I quoted it, that's all. But that aside, it talks about LET there, NOT neo-lorentzian relativity (NOT the same as LET), and it does NOT talk about the other theories I have specifically referred to, via other quotes.

Care to try again?

2 Replies

@layman,

What I did say (specifically to YOU a few posts back) was this:

Quote:

"Neo-lorentzian" relativity or, more generally, theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity, don't require an ether of any kind. Nor do they depend on any "absolutely" motionless point--much less the detection of such a point.

I was not talking about LET then, or at any other point in this thread, get it?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation.

A "preferred frame of reference" is not an ABSOLUTELY motionless frame of reference. Only SR has that.

In SR a "frame of reference" truly "plays the role of Lorentz' immobile ether." It IS treated as the one being absolutely motionless point in the universe with respect to any moving object in any other frame.

LR don't play dat.

Quote:

... leads to the complete Lorentz transformation

Yeah, Lorentz's theory does indeed LEAD TO that. Guess what? That's why it's called the "Lorentz transformation" and NOT the "Einstein transformation," eh? Al stole it from Lorentz.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

I was not talking about LET then, or at any other point in this thread, get it?

Really? What the hell where you talking about when you responded to my post -

parados wrote:

The big difference between LET and SR is LET posits that there is an aether.
No experiment has shown the aether to exist. Do you have such an experiment?

layman wrote:

Quote:
The big difference between LET and SR is LET posits that there is an aether.

No, not in the least. "Neo-lorentzian" relativity or, more generally, theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity, don't require an ether of any kind. Nor do they depend on any "absolutely" motionless point--much less the detection of such a point.

If you weren't talking about LET then you were simply spouting nonsense. Either your response was to my post about the comparison between LET and SR or your post was not in response to it which makes me wonder why you quoted what it appears you were responding to. Leave it to you to argue that you didn't do what you did.

2 Replies

@layman,

Baez, as cited above, discusses the authoritative book by Zhang, "Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations," at some length. The following is an excerpt from a published article also written by Zhang:

Quote:

In Einstein's theory of special relativity [1], constancy of the speed of light is its second postulate. With this postulate, a clock located at any position in a inertial frame can be synchronized with a clock at the origin of the frame by means of a light pulse. Since that time, the clock synchronization problem has been discussed by many authors. Robertson (1949) {2] proposed a more general transformation. Reichenbach (1958) [3] and Grunbaum (1960) (4] discussed this problem in detail, and pointed out that no observable difference would result if the speed of light really were anisotropic. Ruderfer (1960) [5] held that special relativity contains an important assumption which has not and possibly cannot be tested. Edwards (1963) [6] and Winnie (1970) [71 obtained a generalized Lorentz transformation starting from the constancy of the two-way speed of light. It was concluded that the generalized Lorentz transformation predicts the same observable effects with the standard Lorentz transformation. Later, Mansouri and Sexl (1977) [8] proposed another more general transformation. After that time, many papers on this topic, such as Bertotti (1979) [91, MacArthur (1986) [10], Haugan and Will (1987) [111, Ab61ghasem, Khajehpour and Mansouri (1988) [12], Riis et al. (1988, 1989) [13], Bay and White (1989) [14], Gabriel and Haugan (1990) [15], Krisher et al. (1990) [16], and Will (1992) [17], were published....

[In this paper] It is shown that the MS transformation is a generalization of the Robertson transformation, just as the Edwards transformation is a generalization of the Lorentz transformation. In other words, the MS transformation differs from the Robertson transformation by a directional parameter q, just as the case of the Edwards and Lorentz transformations. So that the MS transformation predicts the same observable effects as the Robertson transformation, just as the Edwards transformation does with the Lorentz transformation. This is to say that the directional parameter q representing the anisotropy of the one-way speed of light is not observable in any physical experiment.

http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/as-itp-93-50.pdf

Shitload of math in that paper, Max. Seein as how you love math so much, you might want to read it, eh? Lot of other important papers cited there, too. But, as I've said, it's really not about the math at all, even in this paper of Zhang's. It's about the manner in which the math is employed. That's something you definitely should learn more about, Max.

And, since you purport to respect "experiment," you might want to especially note this:

Quote:

Special relativity contains an important assumption which has not and possibly cannot be tested.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

If you weren't talking about LET then you were simply spouting nonsense. Either your response was to my post about the comparison between LET and SR or your post was not in response to it which makes me wonder why you quoted what it appears you were responding to.

What I said has been stated and restated, Parry, and it speaks for itself. I might tell you to learn to read, but that wouldn't help. I think you can "read" words, you just can't understand the meaning or concepts they are intended to convey.

1 Reply

@parados,

Now that your sophistic attempts to employ fallacious "argument" by way of building up straw men, attempting to equivocate, etc., have fallen apart, Parry, do you have anything of SUBSTANCE that you would like to address?

Care to answer this question, for example:?

Quote:

Suppose this dragster is participating in a 20 mile race down a straight track with a big crowd lining the whole route.

The dragster has a top end of 200 mph. As long as he has enough gas, he can maintain that speed, but he can't exceed it, get the idea? After he hits top end he just "cruises" along at 200 mph.

Would he now (while cruising) be correct, if he claims he's not moving wrt the crowd (the earth's surface)?

2 Replies

@layman,

Sure. I can read words. I tend to think I can understand them as well. You posted this..

Quote:

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity.

How can it be an interpretation of special relativity unless it is an interpretation of special relativity? Aren't you arguing that SR is false? Wouldn't that make anything that is an interpretation of SR false? Please explain your thinking.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Please explain your thinking.

OK. To begin with, once again, those aren't my words, and hence not "my" thinking.

The author was quite imprecise. He should have said:

Quote:

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of relative motion [NOT "SPECIAL RELATIVITY"].

There are many ways to theorize about relative motion. As noted by Baez, there are also many that are completely "confirmed" by the experimental evidence, and that are NOT special relativity.

I quoted (a portion of) an article which explains how the differing application of the SAME math employed by different theories can generate radically different implications pertaining to what actually constitutes "objective physical 'reality'." You might want to read it, in full, for more detail, here:

http://able2know.org/topic/301703-13#post-6073767

1 Reply

@layman,

A strawman?

You are arguing that the Lorentz Ether Theory doesn't include Ether.

You are arguing that the Lorentz Ether Theory that postulates that all things move through the motionless ether doesn't include a motionless ether in the theory.

Quote:

Lorentz's initial theory created in 1892 and 1895 was based on a completely motionless aether

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

You have basically stated that SR is crap and we should revert to Lorentzian theory or the neo-Lorentzian theory which your posts state is a special case of SR.

1 Reply

@layman,

So you posted his words as support for your argument but didn't bother to correct them?

Perhaps you could apologize for your blatant ass-holery in accusing me of not reading or understanding. I read quite clearly what was written and responded to it. You on the other hand seem to have your head up your ass both in reading comprehension and in posting things in support of your arguments.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You are arguing that the Lorentz Ether Theory doesn't include Ether.

No, I am not. I have clearly stated that I am not, several times. I have clearly stated the exact reasons why your imagining that is wrong. That's NOT what I'm arguing, for the reasons heretofore repeatedly stated.

Quote:

You have basically stated that SR is crap and we should revert to Lorentzian theory or the neo-Lorentzian theory which your posts state is a special case of SR.

What I will, for brevity, call LR (lorentzian relativity) is NOT a "special case" of SR. ON THE CONTRARY, as the article I JUST cited you to clearly demonstrates, SR is merely a "special case" of LR. LR applies to (and correctly predicts) ALL relative motion, not just inertial motion (as SR limits itself to).

To be clear, by "just cited" I do NOT mean the poorly written and poorly "reasoned" article in wiki.

1 Reply

@layman,

Is this opposite day?

From your cite....

Quote:

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity.

LET is an interpretation of SR. It's right there. Read it. Comprehend it. Pull your head out of your ass.

So you are not arguing there is not ether? Then where is your experiment showing the ether to exist? I asked for it and you went off on neo-Lorentzian theory which clearly states in the cite your brought here that it doesn't rely on an ether. Once again we see, I read what you post in support but you clearly don't.

You posted this-

Quote:

The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation.

Why would you need something to take the place of an immobile aether if the immobile aether exists?

I see you still haven't apologized for accusing me of not being able to read and comprehend as you provide evidence how you are the one that is unable to read or comprehend.

3 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So you posted his words as support for your argument but didn't bother to correct them?

1. I posted his words in response to a SPECIFIC claim by Max, and I made that clear. Max claimed that "test theories" are designed for, and can be used for, ONLY one purpose, and that the "one" purpose could NOT call SR into question. He was quite wrong about that.

2. I cited a number of articles bearing on LR vs SR, and those show the confused nature of the wiki author's phrasing and conclusions. I wasn't posting his dubious submission "in a vacuum."

3. Max has also made other, completely mistaken, claims that I was simultaneously addressing by posting some of those citations.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

LET is an interpretation of SR. It's right there. Read it. Comprehend it. Pull your head out of your ass

I already responded to this a long time back. You are merely demonstrating that you either don't read or don't understand (or both) anything addressed to you.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I see you still haven't apologized for accusing me of not being able to read and comprehend as you provide evidence how you are the one that is unable to read or comprehend.

I'm sorry, but no apology is due. Virtually everything else you say in this post (most of which I have already explained and which I'm ignoring now) continue to prove the point. You either can't or don't read. If you read you either can't or refuse to understand. You just want to try to push your agenda, without really understanding a thing you are saying. Not new, Parry. Seen all this many times before.

0 Replies

@parados,

You might even get some understanding of what the confused and misleading wiki writer is saying IF you read it--which you haven't (or else misunderstood). Not everything he says is wrong. And he does make it clear enough that LET is NOT LR. They are NOT the same thing, get it?

LET is basically a theory of mechanics. This is clear from such passages as the following:

Quote:

What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons" ["electrons are not relative motion]...

he assumed that also non-electromagnetic forces (if they exist) transform like electric forces. However, Lorentz's expression for charge density and current were incorrect, so his theory did not fully exclude the possibility of detecting the aether. Eventually, it was Henri Poincaré who in 1905 corrected the errors in Lorentz's paper and actually incorporated non-electromagnetic forces (including gravitation) within the theory, which he called "The New Mechanics". [such things as "charge density and non-electromagnetic forces" have nothing to do with relative motion per se. Lorentz (and Poincaire) were using the prevailing concept of an ether to explain THOSE things, not relative motion, per se--that part was incidental]

Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski. [Yes, and many aspect were not. As I said, Einstein despaired of any further attempts (he had spent the previous 10 or so years trying) to come up with a physical explanation of the phenomena, and invented SR "in desperation," he later said, instead]

Even though this author later tries to surreptiously suggest that LET and LR are the same thing, his own words expose his fallacious tactic. LET is NOT LR.

1 Reply

The stats say that there have been over 3400 views of this thread, but very few people have said anything. Those that have tend to make a lot of noise and unsupported assertions, but they refuse to answer even the simplest of questions. Any one out there care to take a stab at answering this question?:

Quote:

Suppose this dragster is participating in a 20 mile race down a straight track with a big crowd lining the whole route.

The dragster has a top end of 200 mph. As long as he has enough gas, he can maintain that speed, but he can't exceed it, get the idea? After he hits top end he just "cruises" along at 200 mph.

Would he now (while cruising) be correct, if he claims he's not moving wrt the crowd (the earth's surface)?

The answer is relevant to the issues which have been discussed here, because SR and LR would give completely different answers to it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The answer is relevant to the issues which have been discussed here, because SR and LR would give completely different answers to it.

This shows one of the flaws in Layman's arguments. If the two "theories" give completely different answers, then scientists can run an experiment to see which of the "two" theories gives the answer that matches the experimental answer.

Parados is correct, of course. LET and SR are equivalent theories because they always give the same answer under any conditions... which is why you can't run an experiment to say which is correct because they are the same theory just worded differently.

Any time they have come up with an theory that makes a different prediction than SR and then tested it by experiment, SR wins. (Why are we stopping at SR... there is an a generalized version called GR?)

That is why the scientific community accepts it as the correct theory.

3 Replies

Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know