View Single Post
mangaroosh
#59
Feb13-12, 07:50 PM
P: 359
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
That is fine. If you don't understand then ask new questions that will help me get at your root concern. But if you merely repeat the same incorrect claim that I answered already then all I can do is as I did above and refer back to my previous answers.

You are correct, I was travelling for about two weeks with reduced time and access. However, I did find it frustrating to come back and find you repeating the same mistake that I already addressed weeks ago.
Apologies DS, I tend to treat each conversation individually and try not to take it for granted that every poster reads every post, so I tend to restate certain points for the purpose of the conversation. A number of the times I have restated the point, however, has either been in somewhat different context or for the purpose of reformulating for clarity.

I would argue, though, that the times I have restated it it hasn't necessarily been superfluous to the two-way conversation. I can understand how it might be frustrating to read the same point repeated, particularly when you are under the impression that you have already answered it, but, as mentioned, I had subsequent questions which were taken up by someone else; this lead me to repeat and/or reformulate the point for the purpose of that discussion.


Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
I don't think that anything productive will come from a discussion of Lorentzian relativity. It is a defunct interpretation which asserts the reality of undetectable entities. All of the confusion with LET comes from the simple fact that the aether is undetectable, so in LET you continually have to make careful distinctions between measurements and what is happening in (undetectable) reality. It is a rabbit hole not worth going down.
The purpose of this thread isn't necessarily to discuss Lorentzian relativity, I think it is sufficient to discuss it in the competing theories thread; the purpose of bringing up Lorentzian relativity here, was solely to juxtapose it with Einsteinian relativity for the purpose of clarification; namely that it appears that the same transformations can result in both absolute simultaneity and RoS. The question that is begged from that is, what is the difference between the two; why RoS under one interpretation, but absolute relativity in the other?

Please forgive the repetition there, I'm using it solely to emphasise that the question hasn't been addressed just yet.


I'm not sure the specific example of the transform you gave fully addresses the question, because the question is more general. It might be the case that length contraction and time dilation do not lead every single event to be relatively simultaneous, but if time dilation and/or length contraction never occurred at all, anywhere, would RoS still prevail?



Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
Try the reply without the invalid reference. Btw, I saw the reference, and if that is the kind of material that you are trying to learn relativity by reading then it is no wonder that you are confused.
It's not so much that I'm confused, rather I haven't made the logical connection yet as to how RoS is separate, stand-alone aspect of Einsteinian relativity and not just a consequence of Lorentzian contractions.

It's probably also worth pointing out that I don't try to learn relativity from sources such as the one posted; I learn relativity largely from discussions with people on sites like this, from the references they post and from my own searches; however, I tend not to simply accept as gospel what I am told, and try to subject such things to critical inquiry, which usually serves the purpose of developing a better understaning; on that basis I will consider alternative viewpoints as long as they stand up to reason, and of course experiment.

The "reference" posted seems to make quite a reasonable point about the propagation of light, which I haven't seen considered elsewhere. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to subject it to the level of critical reasoning required so I can only present it as it is and see if there are arguments against it. However, as it strikes me as being quite reasonable, and conforms to [more reliable] information I have encountered previously, I would lean more towards accepting it (without accepting it fully).

Incidentally, I posted the reply without the reference in the other thread.