Difference between Lorentz and Einstein

[Dale]

Of course additional dimensions were already part of math. Not, however, part of reality.

Einstein seemed to have some great insight into reality

you cannot justify a completely new way of solving a problem that does not fit with the rest of reality

First you claim that Einstein was wrong and reality was not 4D, then you claim that he had great insight into reality (presumably that it is 4D), and then you go back to claiming that his 4D idea didn't fit with the rest of reality. Let me know once you have firmly decided your position on the matter. Until then I will let you finish the argument with yourself before I jump in.

 

[NotAName]

You might want to look at the Poincare papers. With the exception of the determination of the law of velocity addition, pretty much all of the mechanics and the interpretation of SR was developed by Poincare prior to 1905.

Indeed, and on a side note, for the velocity transformation equations one may want to check out the following 1905 letter of Poincare to Lorentz (ε=v/c):
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz4.xml

Thank you both. Excellent suggestions/help!

 

[NotAName]

First you claim that Einstein was wrong and reality was not 4D, then you claim that he had great insight into reality (presumably that it is 4D), and then you go back to claiming that his 4D idea didn't fit with the rest of reality. Let me know once you have firmly decided your position on the matter. Until then I will let you finish the argument with yourself before I jump in.

Lol... well thank you! Though I think the snarkiness may be unnecessary.

Do you understand that I'm looking at a transition between two oppositional viewpoints? And can you see how that may lead to the use of terminology which represents one viewpoint and then also lead to the use of terminology which represents the viewpoint which opposes?

I must admit that because I'm trying to empathize with the thought process of each of these and all the steps that lead up to them that it may sound as though I hold both opposite viewpoints as truth. That is the unfortunate side effect of knowing one to be true personally by doing it myself and only knowing the other is true because thousands of respected professionals know it to be true.

I understand that it is a personal fault that I can find and trace the precise reasoning for one and cannot find the reasoning for the other. Posting here was for the purpose of removing that specific personal flaw. As yet, it has not been rectified.

Which is why I don't discuss that strawman at all.
In contrast, the difference between Lorentz and Einstein is recorded in their writings.

In response to the question of "What version of LET" let me say that the requirement of nailing down an exact version is, once again, a deferral. You are doing something very much like I did when I was a kid and my parents asked me "Did you do your homework". I purposely misunderstood them so that I could answer "yes" since I did, in fact, do homework a few days ago.

After all, they did not properly define their question by stating the exact nature and version of the homework to which they were referring...

To infer that my questions and arguments are invalid because I have not defined the subject to your arbitrarily decided precision is quite the definition of a "straw-man" argument. (Thank you for the demonstration) I have a friend who is quite adept at playing this game and pointing out the reliance upon context and inference necessary for any verbal communication. It can be degraded into an infinite growth program such that even gigantic legal documents which say so little with thousands of words can still be criticized for being poorly defined. So I prefer that we not go down that typical discussion-board rabbit-hole and instead purposely attempt to understand each other to the best of our abilities.I'll simply interpret your criticism of "not picking a version" as a request for more information.

So, let me state some of the aspects of LET that are important to me and that I find to be the principle defining factors of the theory since we agree there is no definitive version.

1) A universal frame of reference called ether than light travels through (inferring simultaneity) as a physical wave at a speed of C
2) Physical shortening that is real and therefore reciprocal in both frames when an object moves wrt the ether
3) Time effects created by a combination of A) the additional time required for light to travel upstream through the ether b) the reduced time required for electromagnetic atomic interaction created by physical shortening
4) The interactions shortening(measuring more space) of and time effects(measuring less time) which result in a moving observer viewing an interferometer experiment to have a simultaneous arrival time for both light paths and therefore have zero fringe shift resulting in the illusion of light traveling the same speed in all frames of reference without it actually doing so.I think the problem may be that you didn't/don't understand the difference between the illusion of "light constancy" and it being a truth because you don't understand the physical derivation of LET well enough and you refuse to admit this lack of knowledge and therefore cannot learn what little I could offer you.

You shouldn't be ashamed of never going through all the paces of figuring out exactly how the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed in combination with the attempt to create a mathematical illusion. I only went through this difficult process because I have a very particular/peculiar interest. Most people have absolutely no reason to ever do this. They have no reason whatsoever to even have this monumentally esoteric knowledge. I hope you don't expect that a person is in any way less intelligent if they do not known know everything in the universe that they don't even care about. I think that would be a little absurd.So you can now say,
"Yes, I know exactly how and why Lorentz created a mathematical illusion and why it is an illusion and I'll explain it now..."
"No, I didn't (or currently do not) understand exactly how constancy is an illusion during the development of LET (which is quite different from SR) and would enjoy hearing what you have learned because you've piqued my interest..."

Or you can say something about my grammar, my phrasing, my version, my mother or some other irrelevant thing and gain nothing.

...your choice

 

[NotAName]

[..] It's easier to understand the difference when you look at the solved twins paradox and realize that when one twin sees the other as shortened, the opposite sees the other as lengthened. When one sees the other as as slower, the opposite sees the other as faster. This is still explicable via classical ether based physics because of Lorentz.[..]

I hope that you now read the paper that I suggested to you, as it shows you wrong. But if you won't check out references, then I'm afraid that discussion with you is a waste of time, sorry.

I need to address this one specifically. Firstly, the paper you have was Langevin in 1911... this is so many years late in the game that you might as well have quoted something from 2007 as proof. Numerous people including Einstein in later years have explained the idea that if you can't detect an ether then the idea of it is useless... That is a part of where the idea of light constancy comes from but it is not actually true. It is only true if you disregard all the perspectives given by ether before deciding whether or not it is useful.

Even Einstein himself later after much more time to understand his own theories said that a total dismissal of ether is a mistake:
"According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." -Albert Einstein 1920


You don't seem to understand the perspectives that you have discarded yet, nor do you seem to know that you have discarded them In a classical physical ether, there is a reciprocal perspective that, according to the knowledge and ability of the day was not something that could be experienced but something that could still be known.

IE: If nature conspired to create an illusion in which light always seems to travel the same speed then you can never know you are in motion even if you truly are in motion wrt the medium the light travels in. And this is where the argument comes in that the ether is a useless artifact... It is however a fallacious argument if you simply insert the possibility of detecting that ether. (even if that is currently impossible)

It is also fallacious if there is in-fact a classical-type ether because, regardless of personal experience, there is one truth that exists between the frames about motion and light speed and there is only Galilean Relativity and therefore there is no Special Relativity (a name given to differentiate it from Galilean) which allows a lack of simultaneity.


I know this sounds confusing when you focus on the fully formed theory of today... I never said it wasn't difficult to come up with relativity. But I can tell you that there is a certainly a classical perspective that Lorentz considered before special relativity. That perspective was not often a consideration because it was not a perspective one could personally experience.

You cannot experience your own time being slowed. You feel normal to yourself. You cannot experience being shortened, you look and feel normal to yourself. This is why other perspectives were not useful because they could not be detected and therefore could not be scientifically proven.

..."could not be detected" was the assumption.

That perspective is the physical reality that in a purely classical world in which there is an ether, that if your time is slowed -by classical physical effects- and your instruments are shortened -by classical physical effects- you will observe a stationary object as time sped up and lengthened.

If you cannot understand this, -regardless of its accuracy in current theory- then all I can say is I'm sorry for your limitation in understanding this aspect of physical logic.

So, no, I'm not wrong. I could be poorly explaining it. You could be misunderstanding my phrasing. But I'm not wrong about what is, at its core, a pure logic problem.

 

[Dale]

Do you understand that I'm looking at a transition between two oppositional viewpoints?

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making is that invoking "reality" in the discussion is inherently problematic.

So, your original point that Einstein was doing something which was justified by math but not justified by "reality" is simply a bad point. It requires either a reality which changes according to changes in the prevailing viewpoint or it requires some sort of mystical knowledge of what "reality" is underneath all of our measurements.

You can discuss the relationship between the two viewpoints and between each viewpoint and experimental results without making statements about which one, if either, represents "reality". When you do so, you are essentially left with the math and the experimental data, both of which justify Einstein's approach.

That is the unfortunate side effect of knowing one to be true personally by doing it myself

Insofar as you believe that SR and LET make all of the same experimental predictions then you cannot know that either one is uniquely "true". And insofar as you believe that SR and LET make different experimental predictions you can know that your LET is false.

 

[NotAName]

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making is that invoking "reality" in the discussion is inherently problematic.

So, your original point that Einstein was doing something which was justified by math but not justified by "reality" is simply a bad point. It requires either a reality which changes according to changes in the prevailing viewpoint or it requires some sort of mystical knowledge of what "reality" is underneath all of our measurements.

You can discuss the relationship between the two viewpoints and between each viewpoint and experimental results without making statements about which one, if either, represents "reality". When you do so, you are essentially left with the math and the experimental data, both of which justify Einstein's approach.

Okay, I can concede that my terminology may have been problematic. We assume however, that Einstein has the better model of the underlying thing we call reality. (I believe there is something that exists regardless of our perception regardless of copenhagen interpretations lol)

But by using the term "reality" I was hoping to convey truth that this viewpoint it utterly different from all other physical phenomena in an extremely fundamental way. Lorentz's version of an ether based illusion does not...

The situation represented in the "solved" twins paradox actually doesn't *necessarily differ from classical mechanics either...

Insofar as you believe that SR and LET make all of the same experimental predictions then you cannot know that either one is uniquely "true". And insofar as you believe that SR and LET make different experimental predictions you can know that your LET is false.

Actually, I do not believe that there is experimental evidence that would falsify the specific difference I am talking about. If you know of an experiment which would falsify that particular difference, please point me in the right direction.

Come to think of it, I don't currently know of an experiment which specifically can differentiate the two in any way, no less the particular small difference I spoke of earlier.

IE: That ether based shortening and the subsequent illusions and timekeeping differences would not change the travel time for light between frames other than by 1*gamma (instead of gamma - motion as predicted by SR)

 

[Samshorn]

I think the problem may be that you didn't/don't understand the difference between the illusion of "light constancy" and it being a truth because you don't understand the physical derivation of LET well enough and you refuse to admit this lack of knowledge and therefore cannot learn what little I could offer you.

In order for your statement to have any meaning, you would need to say what you mean by "illusion" and "truth" in this context, but whatever you think those words mean, they certainly have no empirical basis, given that you accept LET. This is because, according to LET, all phenomena (including mechanics and electrodynamics) satisfy the same set of formal physical laws when described in terms of anyone of an infinite class of space and time coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations. This is the empirical content of both SR and LET: Nature is Lorentz invariant.

Note well that the applicability of the laws of physics to all phenomena in terms of each and every one of these relatively moving systems of coordinates (related by Lorentz transformations) is not an illusion, it is an empirical fact, according to both SR and LET. So if you accept LET (by which we mean the only version of LET not already falsified by abundant experimental evidence) you have no substantive disagreement with SR.

Now, you urge us to adopt the viewpoint that, despite the explicit reciprocity of all those coordinate systems, we must regard ONE specific coordinate system as "the truth", and all the others as "illusions". But it is far from clear what that could possibly mean. Given your belief in LET, you agree that this distinction has no empirical foundation, so it can only be based on metaphysical beliefs (as Lorentz himself said many times).

I don't think anyone here would argue if you simply stated that you would prefer everyone to regard the rest frame of (say) your navel as the "true" rest frame, and every other system of coordinates as "illusions". This would be a well-defined (albeit kooky) proposition. But to simply assert that one particular system of coordinates is "true" and all others are "illusions", without identifying them or giving any criteria or definition of those terms, is frankly just silly - just as silly as thinking other people "don't understand the physical derivation of LET", or that it differs from the "physical derivation of SR". The empirical content of the two is identical (by definition).

 

[NotAName]

In order for your statement to have any meaning, you would need to say what you mean by "illusion" and "truth" in this context, but whatever you think those words mean, they certainly have no empirical basis, given that you accept LET. This is because, according to LET, all phenomena (including mechanics and electrodynamics) satisfy the same set of formal physical laws when described in terms of anyone of an infinite class of space and time coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations. This is the empirical content of both SR and LET: Nature is Lorentz invariant.

In LET they were all related by Lorentz transforms but if the ether was knowable there would be a scale going up and down instead of an equivalence. Since the ether is not knowable via experiment, only a single direction of transformation was provided and the understanding of bi-directionality was expected. It was inferred.
IE If you could actually determine the ether frame then you could have three frames as such: Stationary, .25C and .5C and though the transform from "stationary" to .25 would be the same as the transform from .25 to .5, the transform from .5 to .25 would b inverted. This situation did not need to be discussed however since there was no way to detect the ether frame...

As for illusion and truth, I suppose I could say, "illusion of perspective" and "real physical effect" but you must remember that at that time in history they felt that light being a wave was sufficient empirical basis.

You need to understand that in all the rest of physics, the world, reality, whatever you want to call it; A wave is not a real physical thing. It is concept like a "run". I can go for a run but I can't be a run. It's something that happens to something else.

Specifically it is the compression and rarefaction of a medium as it attempts to reach equilibrium after that equilibrium has been disturbed. So in pre-Einstein terms it was magical thinking to believe that there was not an ether.

It was only upon the advent of relativity and subsequently the photoelectric effect was it discovered that light, like nothing else in the universe, could be a particle and a wave.

Note well that the applicability of the laws of physics to all phenomena in terms of each and every one of these relatively moving systems of coordinates (related by Lorentz transformations) is not an illusion, it is an empirical fact, according to both SR and LET. So if you accept LET (by which we mean the only version of LET not already falsified by abundant experimental evidence) you have no substantive disagreement with SR.

Actually, LET isn't falsified by experimental evidence since nearly all of its predictions match SR. And as I said before it seems quite a few people are not aware of the difference between the illusion and the factuality of constancy represented alternatively by LET and SR

Now, you urge us to adopt the viewpoint that, despite the explicit reciprocity of all those coordinate systems, we must regard ONE specific coordinate system as "the truth", and all the others as "illusions". But it is far from clear what that could possibly mean. Given your belief in LET, you agree that this distinction has no empirical foundation, so it can only be based on metaphysical beliefs (as Lorentz himself said many times).

I don't think you've read the whole thread because you've misunderstood. I never claimed that LET was more correct than SR. Nor to be a proponent of that theory. I've only claimed that there are certain parts of this proto-science theory that I understand a little better than others because of studying it for a long time with a personal bent for history.

In LET you must accept one frame over the others as universal because that was the science of the day and he was not departing that far from classical mechanics. Remember we're discussing history of modern theory here, not modern theory itself.

If Lorentz stated it was metaphysical I haven't run across it. Are you saying that Maxwell's equations were based upon metaphysical nonsense? Ether was not some magical nonsense, it was the best that could be done with the knowledge of the time. It was logical, rational, well reasoned science that simply lacked new data.

I'm really quite surprised at the lack of historical understanding I'm seeing here...

I don't think anyone here would argue if you simply stated that you would prefer everyone to regard the rest frame of (say) your navel as the "true" rest frame, and every other system of coordinates as "illusions". This would be a well-defined (albeit kooky) proposition. But to simply assert that one particular system of coordinates is "true" and all others are "illusions", without identifying them or giving any criteria or definition of those terms, is frankly just silly - just as silly as thinking other people "don't understand the physical derivation of LET", or that it differs from the "physical derivation of SR". The empirical content of the two is identical (by definition).

Nope, you're just quite arrogant in your ignorance...

You do not even understand what I mean by "true" and "illusion" but instead of asking, you simply assume it must be nonsense instead of a rational discussion of logical historical scientific theories which have been replaced once significant additional evidence was presented to the community.

The other frames are obviously not illusions. I don't know how you could think anyone would even believe that. I suppose perhaps it's related to those cultural beliefs that we are so much smarter on average than people a few thousand years ago when all physical evidence, from cranial capacity to fantastic archaeological finds of physical computing devices, points to the contrary.

...but yeah, wow it's soooo silly to believe I could possibly know something another person does not. What was I thinking?
Hey you remember my tenth birthday party... that was great wasn't it?
Oh yeah and how much gentomycin can I safely give to milk cow without contaminating the milk? Is that the right antibiotic for mastitis?
And um, what was the proper diameter for tip size when turning down a shaft for playing snooker instead of billiards?

Oh, wait... maybe some peoples lives are different and they focus on things that other people never have time to focus on, or just don't care to focus on... you think?

 

[TrickyDicky]

Let me say the same thing in terms a little more agreeable. Never before in math has it been thought of to simply add an additional subscript on an array to make a paradoxical answer no longer paradoxical. You see it in particular terms you are used to but I'm attempting to tell you that I'm looking for the justification to go from three dimensions to four. That is the big leap. Perhaps this is more agreeable nomenclature?

Furthermore I'm pointing out that the same transformation were used with only three dimensions and that when you reduce the twins paradox to one twin actually being larger and the other twin actually being shorter, the fourth dimension gets eliminated in the process. You've simply reduced it to a neo-classical explanation that Lorentz might give if he ever shifted perspective into the moving frame to view a stationary one. (Not all frames were equal in LET because the ether defined them. There was only one universal frame by which all others were judged)

To be historically rigorous, the "big leap" as you call it was formally introduced by Minkowski in 1907 and was actually not well taken by Einstein at first, he saw it as unnecessary prefering to treat time only as a parameter, only later when working on GR he totallly adhered to the Minkowki formalism. And yes it was a bit of a shock but this picture had been prepaired by Riemann's work on manifolds and generalizations to higher dimensions, so it seemed logical.

 

[NotAName]

Okay, one thing I can do to help is define what I mean by illusion since I'm just talking about it like everyone knows and apparently it's a part of history that is a bit lost.

Go back to my earlier post with the image of the truck. It is a replica of the Michelson-Morely except with sound and it relies upon a medium. Lorentz, and FitzGerald who initially suggested it, believed that since we perceive everything via light that if we were shortened up to make up for the additional time for light to travel upstream, we wouldn't be able to tell.

Look at the diagram and you'll see that truck #1 has the "light beams"(or sound chirps) come back at the same time. But if you put the truck in motion then they both take longer but one is more affected than the other. (seen with truck 2)Thus if you change the up-wind path length total to match the cross-wind path length total they arrive simultaneously like in truck 3.

Now simply assume that instead of moving a mirror, the distance is shortened by the wind blowing the mirror or something and the only way you can personally tell if anything has changed is by listening. (the equvlent of "looking" with light) As far as you know, nothing has changed even though the truck is moving. Therefore sound seems to travel the same speed in all frames of reference as far as you know.

Unfortunately the whole experiment takes longer so therefore there is a change in time overall, however when it comes to light, they believed that since electromagnetic interactions were the timekeepers of the universe, the change to time cannot be noticed.

In our little sound experiment it's a little like saying that all our clocks get slowed down a bit by wind and it just so happens that the amount they are slowed is the total extra amount required for our new "simultaneous arrival" experiment. I guess you have to understand an interferometer to understand Lorentz and FitzGeralds initial goal. A fringe shift means the beams arrive at different times. No fringe shift means they arrive simultaneously.

Now do you understand that the final truck believes that the sound travels 20 feet in each direction in 20 milliseconds but it's just an illusion of perspective? This is what Lorentz Ether Theory does...

 

[NotAName]

To be historically rigorous, the "big leap" as you call it was formally introduced by Minkowski in 1907 and was actually not well taken by Einstein at first, he saw it as unnecessary prefering to treat time only as a parameter, only later when working on GR he totallly adhered to the Minkowki formalism. And yes it was a bit of a shock but this picture had been prepaired by Riemann's work on manifolds and generalizations to higher dimensions, so it seemed logical.

Hmm, really? ...Well, for light to be "truly constant" as apposed to an illusion of perspective ... wasn't this introduced in OEMB? Hmm, now you have me thinking maybe not...(please see other posts if "illusion of perspective" seems cryptic)

Thanks for the additional piece to the puzzle! I'll have to look at this more thoroughly.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Hmm, really? ...Well, for light to be "truly constant" as apposed to an illusion of perspective ... wasn't this introduced in OEMB? Hmm, now you have me thinking maybe not...(please see other posts if "illusion of perspective" seems cryptic)
.

I was specifically addressing only what I quoted from you about the "leap" from 3 to 4 dimensions.

 

[Dale]

To be historically rigorous, the "big leap" as you call it was formally introduced by Minkowski in 1907 and was actually not well taken by Einstein at first, he saw it as unnecessary prefering to treat time only as a parameter, only later when working on GR he totallly adhered to the Minkowki formalism. And yes it was a bit of a shock but this picture had been prepaired by Riemann's work on manifolds and generalizations to higher dimensions, so it seemed logical.

Thanks for this. I am not into the history so I didn't feel knowledegable enough to make this claim on my own. But this is in line with my vague recollections of what I have heard about the historical development of SR.

 

[Samshorn]

Okay, one thing I can do to help is define what I mean by illusion... Now do you understand that the final truck believes that the sound travels 20 feet in each direction in 20 milliseconds but it's just an illusion of perspective?

I understand why you think the truck "thinks" this, and why you think it is an illusion, but I also understand why you and the truck are both wrong. When you say the truck's conception [sic] of the distance and duration of travel of the sound is an illusion, it's because you believe the "true" distance and duration are different than what the truck "thinks". In other words, you don't think the truck's method of measuring space and time intervals (using sound waves) represents the "true" measures... that's why you say the results are an illusion.

But in order for your claims to have any meaning - in order for us to be able to confirm whether the truck's measures are "true" or "not true" - you need to say in physically meaningful terms what you believe are the "true" measures of space and time.

But as soon as you try to do this, the fallacy of your thinking is exposed, because (since you accept LET) you agree that all physical phenomena are Lorentz invariant, meaning that they all satisfy the same formal laws in terms of each and every system in a class of relatively moving systems related by Lorentz transformations. So any means of measuring the "true" distances and times that you can describe will automatically (according to both LET and SR) have exactly the same description in terms of anyone of these coordinate systems.

Of course, the absolute spacetime intervals in all these descriptions will be the same, but the decomposition of those intervals into space and time components will be different. So you need to tell us why one particular decomposition is "true" and all the others are an illusion. This you cannot do, without appealing to metaphysics.

Samshorn wrote:
"So if you accept LET (by which we mean the only version of LET not already falsified by abundant experimental evidence) you have no substantive disagreement with SR."

Actually, LET isn't falsified by experimental evidence since nearly all of its predictions match SR.

You misread my comment. I said we are referring to a version of LET that is NOT falsified. It makes no sense for you to respond by saying "Actually, LET isn't falsified..."

But more seriously, when you say "nearly all of its predictions match SR" you reveal that you are NOT talking about an empirically viable theory. The version of LET you are talking about differs in its empirical predictions from special relativity, so it's already falsified (unless you're saying the difference is so small as to be undetectable, in which case... yawn.)

I never claimed that LET was more correct than SR. Nor to be a proponent of that theory.

Now hold on a minute. You said the assertions of SR are an illusion, and the assertions of LET are the truth. Are you now disavowing those statements?

I've only claimed that there are certain parts of this proto-science theory that I understand a little better than others because of studying it for a long time with a personal bent for history... If Lorentz stated it was metaphysical I haven't run across it.

For example, in 1913 Lorentz wrote "The acceptance of these concepts [SR versus LET] belongs mainly to epistemology... it depends to a large extent on the way one is accustomed to think whether one is most attracted to one or another interpretation..." Similarly Poincare wrote "Whether the ether exists or not matters little - let us leave that to the metaphysicians..."

Nope, you're just quite arrogant in your ignorance...

I see.

 

[Dale]

But by using the term "reality" I was hoping to convey truth that this viewpoint it utterly different from all other physical phenomena in an extremely fundamental way.

No it isn't utterly different. In fact, it seems to be an essential part of all four known fundamental physical forces and thus all physical phenomena. It may be utterly different from your preconceptions, but there is no evidence that it is at all different from reality.

Actually, I do not believe that there is experimental evidence that would falsify the specific difference I am talking about. If you know of an experiment which would falsify that particular difference, please point me in the right direction.

Come to think of it, I don't currently know of an experiment which specifically can differentiate the two in any way, no less the particular small difference I spoke of earlier.

The difference you mentioned earlier is a difference of 62%. Experimentally that is a huge difference. In Robertsons famous paper he demonstrated that SR could be deduced to about 0.1% from the Michelson Morely, Ives Stillwell, and Kennedy Thorndike experiments. So a difference of 62% is not compatible with existing evidence.

http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v21/i3/p378_1

 

[NotAName]

Let me make something clear here because Samhorn is really muddying the waters. Never have I claimed during any of this that SR is wrong, illusion, incorrect or in any way not the superior theory. The only thing I've been discussing is the development of LET which is a precursor to SR. Nothing else! I have admitted that I have not yet fully grasped the transition point as well as I have grasped LET but I think I am in good company when I claim that I have not fully personally matched the genius of Einstein. ...excuse the heck out of me!

I understand why you think the truck "thinks" this, and why you think it is an illusion, but I also understand why you and the truck are both wrong. When you say the truck's conception [sic] of the distance and duration of travel of the sound is an illusion, it's because you believe the "true" distance and duration are different than what the truck "thinks". In other words, you don't think the truck's method of measuring space and time intervals (using sound waves) represents the "true" measures... that's why you say the results are an illusion.

But in order for your claims to have any meaning - in order for us to be able to confirm whether the truck's measures are "true" or "not true" - you need to say in physically meaningful terms what you believe are the "true" measures of space and time.

The truck is doing everything with sound waves. It happens to be an analogy for the Michelson-Morley as conceived by Lorentz during the development of LET. This is all I'm saying. But unless you are just completely focused on me being wrong (because for some reason you just need that so badly) it should be obvious to you that, if we look at it just as an experiment with sound waves alone, then the truck does indeed experience an illusion. Period.

Whether or not this is an accurate representation of reality as we know it from modern science, is not even a question! It is only a model used to understand how and why Lorentz created the Lorentz transformation.

But in order for your claims to have any meaning - in order for us to be able to confirm whether the truck's measures are "true" or "not true" - you need to say in physically meaningful terms what you believe are the "true" measures of space and time.

But as soon as you try to do this, the fallacy of your thinking is exposed, because (since you accept LET) you agree that all physical phenomena are Lorentz invariant, meaning that they all satisfy the same formal laws in terms of each and every system in a class of relatively moving systems related by Lorentz transformations. So any means of measuring the "true" distances and times that you can describe will automatically (according to both LET and SR) have exactly the same description in terms of anyone of these coordinate systems.

The fallacy of my thinking? The fallacy of your thinking you mean. You think I've said somewhere that LET is more correct, I haven't. You think I've said the 19th century concept of ether is more correct. I haven't. But I will assert that at it's base, LET does differentiate between a true frame and one that experiences an illusion but it only does so via inference. The reason for not discussing the rest frame is because they were incapable of detecting which one was the rest frame but not because that frame didn't exist. It was called ether and it was the one universal frame.

(don't get confused at this point... when I speak about opinions of LET I'm speaking for a now deprecated theory, not attempting to argue for the validity of a defunct theory)

Of course, the absolute spacetime intervals in all these descriptions will be the same, but the decomposition of those intervals into space and time components will be different. So you need to tell us why one particular decomposition is "true" and all the others are an illusion. This you cannot do, without appealing to metaphysics.

What metaphysics? I want to know what I've discussed - at all - that is metaphysics. Are you just using it because you know it has some insulting bearing to it and that's what you really hope to convey? If you believe ether is in any way metaphysical you are wrong. Perhaps ether is "incorrect" or better yet "unnecessary" but far from metaphysical.

You misread my comment. I said we are referring to a version of LET that is NOT falsified. It makes no sense for you to respond by saying "Actually, LET isn't falsified..."

But more seriously, when you say "nearly all of its predictions match SR" you reveal that you are NOT talking about an empirically viable theory. The version of LET you are talking about differs in its empirical predictions from special relativity, so it's already falsified (unless you're saying the difference is so small as to be undetectable, in which case... yawn.)

It is blindingly obvious to anyone reading that you are grasping at straws. You are using inference alone with no knowledge of the material to "deduce history" and I'm sorry but it's not working well for you.

You are also making these broad sweeping religious faith-like assertions that anything that does not match SR is automatically falsified as though we've been everywhere in the universe. Any good scientist believes that current theory, even if it feels 99.999 certain, is still just a theory waiting for falsification. Just because something doesn't match special relativity does not mean it is falsified. Isn't there some mild differences in GR, in fact, which would be different than SR? If so, are you saying GR is also falsified?

The one thing I have mentioned that I have found is that reducing to one perspective and having one preferred frame of reference does change one particular prediction about how far light travels in a period of time for a particular frame. It is a strange little portion of SR that isn't often discussed. Given that we solve the twins paradox by reducing to one universal frame, I think there may be some justification at looking at this differential prediction and seeing if it also applies to SR under those particular circumstances. This is the most outlandish thing I've even inferred.

If you want a point to attack, there it is...

Now hold on a minute. You said the assertions of SR are an illusion, and the assertions of LET are the truth. Are you now disavowing those statements?

No, you are just interpreting my statements based upon fundamental misunderstandings. ...And it's led you add an additional layer of confusion. I've only said that LET predicts that the constancy of light is conceived as an illusion whereas in SR constancy is a fundamental truth.

For example, in 1913 Lorentz wrote "The acceptance of these concepts [SR versus LET] belongs mainly to epistemology... it depends to a large extent on the way one is accustomed to think whether one is most attracted to one or another interpretation..." Similarly Poincare wrote "Whether the ether exists or not matters little - let us leave that to the metaphysicians..."

Ahh, so there is your reason for using the word "metaphysics". An appeal to authority without any understanding of the subject. Lorentz was simply reiterating that if you can't prove it's there, then referring to an ether is a bit contrived. This was with the inference that ether could not be detected at that time and he could see no way to do so then or in the future.

There was not nearly as much discussion of the numerous permutations of the predictions back then as there are today. So if you want to attack me then focus on this:

I think there is some small possibility that there is more reason to differentiate between the theories than Lorentz thought.

I see.

You should.. but you don't.

 

[NotAName]

No it isn't utterly different. In fact, it seems to be an essential part of all four known fundamental physical forces and thus all physical phenomena. It may be utterly different from your preconceptions, but there is no evidence that it is at all different from reality.

I think Samwise might have influenced you some...

You are speaking of what is known today, that is not what I was speaking of. During his time light constancy had no analogy in nature anywhere. In fact there is still nothing else that behaves in this fashion that was not spawned by relativistic physics. By this I mean there are some strange effects in quantum physics but relativity really paved the way for those spooky effects to be accepted.

Sometimes I don't think people see a physcial model of what constancy means. It means you can't just track one particular wave of light. Light just is not that intuitive and simple like sound is. Even after conversions, light doesn't "line up" between frames.

This is pointed out by my very first post. Constancy is revolutionary. It is not some simple transition from Lorentz's idea of an illusion.

The difference you mentioned earlier is a difference of 62%. Experimentally that is a huge difference. In Robertsons famous paper he demonstrated that SR could be deduced to about 0.1% from the Michelson Morely, Ives Stillwell, and Kennedy Thorndike experiments. So a difference of 62% is not compatible with existing evidence.

http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v21/i3/p378_1

Yes, and what I mentioned earlier would still match the Michelson Morley perfectly as well. See the diagram of trucks... Therefore the difference I mention is not something that has been tested.

(now we're actually debating a real difference in assertions again. Yay, we're back on track!)

 

[Samshorn]

Never have I claimed during any of this that SR is wrong, illusion, incorrect or in any way not the superior theory. The only thing I've been discussing is the development of LET which is a precursor to SR. Nothing else!

The one thing I have mentioned that I have found is that reducing to one perspective and having one preferred frame of reference does change one particular prediction about how far light travels in a period of time for a particular frame.

Your two statements above contradict each other. The second statement reveals that you think LET is correct and SR is wrong. Several people have explained to you (including Lorentz and Poincare!) that the only empirically viable version of LET is equivalent to SR; they differ only in the fact that LET includes a superfluous metaphysical (and shifty, as Lorentz admitted in private correspondence to Einstein) commitment.

I have admitted that I have not yet fully grasped the transition point as well as I have grasped LET...

But what everyone here is telling you is that you have NOT grasped LET, by which is meant the empirically viable version of LET, which is equivalent to SR. Since they are equivalent, grasping one is the same as grasping the other. What you have grasped is a misconception... you need to release your grasp on that, and take hold of the actual fact: physics is (locally) Lorentz invariant.

The truck is doing everything with sound waves. It happens to be an analogy for the Michelson-Morley as conceived by Lorentz during the development of LET. This is all I'm saying.

But it's an invalid analogy, for the reason I explained. Look, you claim to be trying to grasp the transition from the old Lorentzian concepts to special relativity, but you consistently refuse to listen to the explanations. There is a difference between sonic-truck based measurements and what we regard as true measurements of space and time intervals. If you want to understand special relativity (and modern LET, for that matter), you MUST bring yourself to actually think about what you would regard as the "true" measures of space and time intervals - without appealing to metaphysics.

What metaphysics? I want to know what I've discussed - at all - that is metaphysics.

LET and SR are empirically equivalent. They differ only in the metaphysical commitment of LET to the idea (though not the practice) of referring everything to a single system of coordinates. The difficulty here is that you mistakenly think LET yields a prediction that differs from SR, so you deny that the difference is metaphysical. If there were such a difference, then indeed the difference between them would not be purely metaphysical, but you are mistaken in your belief. So the most productive thing for you to do would be to try to understand why your idea about the "one particular prediction" is wrong. Once you understand that, you will agree that the difference between SR and LET is purely metaphysical.

You are also making these broad sweeping religious faith-like assertions that anything that does not match SR is automatically falsified...

Only up to the level of precision that has been achieved. There are on-going tests of Lorentz invariance being carried out, at more and more extreme conditions, looking for the slightest hint of a violation, but nothing has ever been found. However, the kind of difference that you are talking about was empirically ruled out ages ago.

Isn't there some mild differences in GR, in fact, which would be different than SR? If so, are you saying GR is also falsified?

Indeed. That's why we say Lorentz invariance applies LOCALLY. Globally Lorentz invariance is broken in general relativity. But of course this has nothing to do with your imagined "difference" between SR and LET.

Ahh, so there is your reason for using the word "metaphysics". An appeal to authority without any understanding of the subject.

Hold on there partner. I had mentioned that Lorentz said the difference between SR and LET was metaphysical, and you replied that in your many years of studying the history of the subject, and your incredibly thorough and profound understanding of every historical nuance, you had never run across any statement of Lorentz to that effect (!), so I provided you with a quote... and then you come back to accuse me of making an "appeal to authority". Do you understand why your comment makes no sense?

Look, you challenged whether Lorentz ever said any such thing, I gave you a quote where he said such a thing, and threw in another quote from Poincare for good measure. You're welcome. And just to continue your education, here's another well-known quote from Lorentz, this one from 1915:

"The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t..."

If, as you say, you are really striving to understand the transition from Lorentz's original viewpoint to special relativity, you should think carefully about this. But probably the most important thing for you to do is understand why your claimed experimental difference between LET and SR doesn't exist.

 

[Dale]

I think Samwise might have influenced you some...

Hard to see how since I haven't been following your discussion with him at all.

You are speaking of what is known today, that is not what I was speaking of.

I understand that, but you keep using terms like "reality" and "physical phenomena". Presumably you do not believe that "reality" or "physical phenomena" actually changed in 1905 with the introduction of SR. So your continued statements to the effect that his breakthrough ideas didn't fit with "reality" or "physical phenomena" are absurd, please refer back to my snarky comments above.

What you should be talking about is how his theory differed from other theories of the day. Theories change, and it makes sense to talk about an experimentally validated theory not fitting with some set of other theories.

Personally, I think that you have some tightly held preconceptions about how "reality" works, and Einstein's theory challenges those preconceptions. You therefore write about his theory not fitting with "reality" because you actually feel, at a viceral level, that that is exactly the case. I am pointing out, and will continue to do so, that your viceral feeling is simply not rational. It requires either a belief that "reality" actually did change in 1905, or a belief that you have some mystical insight into "reality" beyond what is measured. I suspect that the latter more accurately reflects your attitude.

This is pointed out by my very first post. Constancy is revolutionary. It is not some simple transition from Lorentz's idea of an illusion.

I agree. So talk about that without making absurd comments about Einstein's ideas not fitting with "reality" or "physical phenomena".

Yes, and what I mentioned earlier would still match the Michelson Morley perfectly as well. See the diagram of trucks... Therefore the difference I mention is not something that has been tested.

(now we're actually debating a real difference in assertions again. Yay, we're back on track!)

MM is not the only experiment. Please read the Robertson paper I linked to. Your theory deviates from SR by > 0.1% so it violates at least one of those three experiments.

 

[NotAName]

Hard to see how since I haven't been following your discussion with him at all.

Good, because while you may be somewhat hostile, you still make sense, he on the other hand does not and I'm not going to waste my time with him further.

Though I may have made some points with him that might have served our conversation but I'll get over it...

I understand that, but you keep using terms like "reality" and "physical phenomena". Presumably you do not believe that "reality" or "physical phenomena" actually changed in 1905 with the introduction of SR. So your continued statements to the effect that his breakthrough ideas didn't fit with "reality" or "physical phenomena" are absurd, please refer back to my snarky comments above.

What you should be talking about is how his theory differed from other theories of the day. Theories change, and it makes sense to talk about an experimentally validated theory not fitting with some set of other theories.

But that's not what I'm saying. I feel justified in doubting some of the recent discoveries in quantum physics because they haven't been around as long and there is a little debate around the interpretations of some of the results. The same is not true of relativity, we have no doubt and the results are mind-blowing.

So what I'm saying is that constancy is like entanglement. Nowhere else in the universe of our understanding does instantaneous action at a distance exist. It breaks all of our understandings about that which is physical.

So when I use those terms I am still referring to the fact that it is hugely divergent from the rest of the behaviors of things in the universe. It's like being told that, when two gears are brought together with the same diameter and the same number and size of teeth that if one is made out of a special substance that when one is turned the other turns at a different rate.

Personally, I think that you have some tightly held preconceptions about how "reality" works, and Einstein's theory challenges those preconceptions. You therefore write about his theory not fitting with "reality" because you actually feel, at a viceral level, that that is exactly the case. I am pointing out, and will continue to do so, that your viceral feeling is simply not rational. It requires either a belief that "reality" actually did change in 1905, or a belief that you have some mystical insight into "reality" beyond what is measured. I suspect that the latter more accurately reflects your attitude.

You are right, there are certain things that are extremely counter-intuitive and that is part of the process fro what I've been made to understand is to get around those faulty intuitions. But my terminology was only meant to reflect that counter-intuitive aspect. It is much like my gears analogy above. It seems much like that. Like some of the spokes/teeth have to go into some other dimension or something.

I think there are a great number of people who do not grasp the full meaning and effect of constancy. You may not be one of them but please allow me to elaborate. Let's say the light beam is a laser beam, if the two coordinate systems are represented in two dimensions and laid side by side with the origin lined up. With any other physical object in the universe, no matter what the perception about location, the front of the object would be in the same place. With light, the first wavefront is not in the same place at all except at the origin.

I agree. So talk about that without making absurd comments about Einstein's ideas not fitting with "reality" or "physical phenomena".

MM is not the only experiment. Please read the Robertson paper I linked to. Your theory deviates from SR by > 0.1% so it violates at least one of those three experiments.

The theory does not deviate from the Michelson Morely at all. That has been my point the entire time. And in the situation I mentioned above, the first wavefront is in the same place in the two coordinate systems, unlike SR.

Simultaneity is still preserved in a single universal frame of ether. SR virtually creates two "universal" frames which are not only at an angle to each other but additive in a certain way that does not exist in LET.

I've not explained the derivation very well so let me post an image that will give you a little better idea. I'll explain further in another post because I'm in a huge hurry at the moment. But if you'll simply look at the image you'll see how easy it is to cause an interferometer experiment to be null via shortening alone. The other effects of time are just a result of light's travel, but the MM result only requires that both beams arrive simultaneously. Which they do with a simple shortening.

To find the formula originally you need only examine the experiment in an ether environment and use a little common sense and Pythagorean theorem. You end up realizing after a while that it's simple trig.

I've also included an image of what occurred on the original MM and what a fringe shift would look like...

 

[Dale]

So when I use those terms I am still referring to the fact that it is hugely divergent from the rest of the behaviors of things in the universe.

This is simply not the case. It is a fundamental part of the behaviors of all the things in the universe. The invariance of c is an essential part of EM, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity. That encompasses everything we know. Far from being divergent, it is unifying.

But my terminology was only meant to reflect that counter-intuitive aspect.

If that is what the terminology is meant to refelct then I strongly recommend the use of the word "counter-intuitive" rather than the word "reality".

Let's say the light beam is a laser beam, if the two coordinate systems are represented in two dimensions and laid side by side with the origin lined up. With any other physical object in the universe, no matter what the perception about location, the front of the object would be in the same place. With light, the first wavefront is not in the same place at all except at the origin.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Perhaps you can write it out mathematically for clarity, or pictorially with a good spacetime diagram?

When you Lorentz transform between frames you transform the worldlines of any light pulses just the same way as you transform the worldlines of massive objects.

The theory does not deviate from the Michelson Morely at all.

Then it must deviate from one of the other three I mentioned. Either way it has been experimentally falsified.

 

[NotAName]

Let me quickly add that, LET gives us the ability to add an additional coordinate system that describes the original one in different terms. SR gives us two different coordinate systems.

If you're remember back to the beginning of the conversation, I asked if the "motion was already in the calculation" which is what is true of LET. That is why there is only one simultaneous arrival time for light in LET which is represented in the original as .5 and .488 There is no need to add the motion again because it is accounted for in the universal frame and the calculations used to transform.

Whereas in SR, they are non simultaneous which gives the .2?? and the illusion of three different arrival times or more.

The difference in arrival times and all other effect are the result of constancy, which leads to lack of simultaneity, which in LET terms allows the speed of the traveler to seem to be added twice to the calculation of the arrival time of the beam of light.

Both theories describe the MM exactly the same however.

 

[Mentz114]

The theory does not deviate from the Michelson Morely at all. That has been my point the entire time. And in the situation I mentioned above, the first wavefront is in the same place in the two coordinate systems, unlike SR.

A wavefront, like any physical manifestation can only be in one place at one time. Its position, when described in different coordinate systems can give different coordinates.

Simultaneity is still preserved in a single universal frame of ether. SR virtually creates two "universal" frames which are not only at an angle to each other but additive in a certain way that does not exist in LET.

More twaddle. Any system which insists on absolute simultaneity is in contradiction with experiment and everyday experience.

 

[NotAName]

A wavefront, like any physical manifestation can only be in one place at one time. Its position, when described in different coordinate systems can give different coordinates.


More twaddle. Any system which insists on absolute simultaneity is in contradiction with experiment and everyday experience.

Everyday experience? Like mechanical sound waves? ... If you think that then you absolutely do not understand what "lack of simultaneity" means. Period.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I'm talking about but I'm afraid your confidence in the idea that I'm saying something faulty is leading you astray. You are relying upon rote memorization instead of actually going through the problem presented. Your rote memorization does not fit this problem.

It's quite unfortunate if you don't understand the principle of the lack of simultaneity and its physical consequences. Do you not understand the need for light cones and other representations? It is the addition of a fourth dimension. To explain a wholly new effect in reality.

If you will simply mathematically run through one single iteration of the specific situation I described above (and copied below), you will find that SR does not simply use classical coordinate systems that can be overlapped. You cannot freeze one moment in time and find the location of a certain wave of light. As soon as you move to find the wave, the wave changes location in space-time. It's a bit like the inverse of the uncertainty principle.

If you will look at my explanation of the trucks and sound waves experiment and then apply classical and non-classical mechanics to the situation like I described in the second post on this thread (copied below), you will find only two descriptions of the location of the first wavefront for a physical wave. There are more for light...

Please substitute light for sound below and use the trucks experiment as a guide. The point is to show that if we were to attempt to apply the full weight of relativity theory towards sound waves we would find relativity theory to be in error, of course. What I've been talking about is the reason why. LET was still a classical theory, SR is not. LET will have no disagreement with a classical prediction.

(Below there is a small mis-statement. A lorentzian observer would only calculate the speed of light as 1.33 units per second if he could detect the motion of ether. This excerpt below had a particular context that is misleading for a normal discussion of later versions of LET in which it was acknowledged that we cannot use knowledge of the ether frame.)

According to Lorentz, a traveller going to a star .5 lightyears away at .5C takes 1 year in the stationary frame but the traveller only records .866 as much time elapsing for a total of .866 years to arrive. Many perspectives were changed for the traveller however: During his travel he believed the point he traveled to was 1.1547 as many units away. He believes light to travel at 1.33 units per second but also still calculates his speed as .5C (because time effects from shortening affect distance inversely leaving only the wind effect visible to in-frame observers).

According to Einstein, a traveller going to a star .5 lightyears away at .5C takes 1 year according to the stationary frame but the traveller only records .866 as much time elapsing for a total of .866 years to arrive. The traveller believes himself to be stationary and that the distant object is approaching at .5C from a distance of .433 lightyears away.

So far there is little effective difference, however:

According to Lorentz, a beam of light traveling to that distant star would take .5 years in the stationary frame and would take .433 years in the moving frame.

According to Einstein, a beam of light traveling to that distant star would take .5 years in the stationary frame and would take .433 years in the moving frame less the movement of the distant star for a total of .288 years.

In mechanical wave theory there exists only .5 years for sound's travel time and .433 years for the skewed frame's perspective. Two frames, two locations for the first wave front.

The difference created by SR is that each observer is treated as the universal frame and both frames are given the attribute of motion. This is why, when applying relativity to a physical wave, your error will be to add the motion twice resulting in .288 years. The motion was already present in the transformation. (hopefully you understand to substitute lightyears for soundyears etc and I need not explain this)

If you want to attack my position you must assert the following and I will ignore any side arguments that do not include this assertion as just attempts to change the subject:
Does physical wave theory predict a different arrival time for the first wave front of sound, when considered from a moving perspective (whose clocks run at a slower rate), than Special Relativity would if applied to sound? My answer is yes.

Let me re-iterate an important principle: The clocks on the moving vehicle have substituted a pendulum for a chirp-reflection-detection system when considering the problem classically. They are therefore slowed by gamma when put in motion. This was the presumption of LET and it is true of the devices just briefly described.

I know this is a somewhat difficult classical physics question for you that you might not feel like solving but if you're not willing to take my word for it then you must prove I'm wrong, not just claim it emotionally. Do you need any further information to solve the problem? Some of the things I've mentioned most people even in physics have never considered, such as the idea of clocks running on sound being subject to time effects when in motion. This classical time effect is rarely understood and most are surprised to find that it is subject to the Lorentz transform.

The difference I'm asserting is this: Classical wave theory predicts only .5 and .433 whereas SR predicts .5 and .288 years. But the catch and the "additional times predicted by SR" that I'm referring to is the fact that when we convert .288 of the moving fame's years into stationary frames years using gamma we get yet another prediction: (.288 * 1.1547 =) .332 years

So, in effect, if we switch back and forth between frames using the conversion we'll cause a problem. We currently have .288 .332 and .5 as predictions of arrival time and we could produce more by continuing to convert results back and forth. This error cannot be performed/produced in classical physics. IE we can go back and forth between .433 and .5 using the transform and there is always only two numbers. (.433*1.1547 = .5 *.866 = .433)
That is because in classical physics we invert the operation each time we go from one frame to the other.

I'm trying to show you this subtle difference between the theories but I don't think any of you get it which is really starting to weird me out. Just solve the problem with sound and I think you'll finally follow the difference between classical and non-classical predictions.

Do your homework and you'll understand. Just emotionally claiming I'm wrong will not suffice.

(I think I'll start a wholly new thread to explain just the classical physical geometric solution Lorentz initially created with more of the diagrams from the paper I'm working on. Maybe that will clear the air a bit)

 

[Mentz114]

Does physical wave theory predict a different arrival time for the first wave front of sound, when considered from a moving perspective (whose clocks run at a slower rate), than Special Relativity would if applied to sound?

I cannot understand this at all.

It's quite unfortunate if you don't understand the principle of the lack of simultaneity and its physical consequences. Do you not understand the need for light cones and other representations? It is the addition of a fourth dimension. To explain a wholly new effect in reality.

Gee, a fourth dimension ! You're kidding me.

The difference created by SR is that each observer is treated as the universal frame and both frames are given the attribute of motion.

Gobbledegook.

This is why, when applying relativity to a physical wave, your error will be to add the motion twice resulting in .288 years.

You can predict the future, including my mistakes !

Some of the things I've mentioned most people even in physics have never considered, such as the idea of clocks running on sound being subject to time effects when in motion. This classical time effect is rarely understood and most are surprised to find that it is subject to the Lorentz transform.

Clocks don't experience relativistic effects it is time itself that does. Thus all relativists already know that your 'sound clocks' will do the same as other clocks. No surprise.

I'm trying to show you this subtle difference between the theories but I don't think any of you get it which is really starting to weird me out.

You are not making a good case by saying things are not true and ignoring post#3.

I have to say you sound like a serious person but I just don't get it. You don't seem to understand basic relativity.

 

[harrylin]

[..]
I'll simply interpret your criticism of "not picking a version" as a request for more information.[...]

You confounded people; as a result the one your were talking to may not have noticed!
In contrast, I encourage you not to fall in the trap of discussing something that never really existed but instead, to stick to your topic: Einstein and Lorentz did exist, and they did have (slightly) different opinions.

 

[harrylin]

I need to address this one specifically. Firstly, the paper you have was Langevin in 1911... this is so many years late in the game that you might as well have quoted something from 2007 as proof. Numerous people including Einstein in later years have explained the idea that if you can't detect an ether then the idea of it is useless... That is a part of where the idea of light constancy comes from but it is not actually true. It is only true if you disregard all the perspectives given by ether before deciding whether or not it is useful. [..]

As that paper is in support of Lorentz's ether concept, I can't make any sense of what you mean - except if you didn't even look at it, but just wasted your time on writing a long inappropriate response. Is that the cause perhaps?

 

[Dale]

The difference I'm asserting is this: Classical wave theory predicts only .5 and .433 whereas SR predicts .5 and .288 years. But the catch and the "additional times predicted by SR" that I'm referring to is the fact that when we convert .288 of the moving fame's years into stationary frames years using gamma we get yet another prediction: (.288 * 1.1547 =) .332 years

Why are you re-posting this mistake when I already corrected you on it in the other thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3829450&postcount=48

Also, the speed of sound violates the second postulate, i.e. it is not invariant. So you cannot just replace c in the Lorentz transform by the speed of sound and get a theory which is consistent with observation.

 

[NotAName]

Why are you re-posting this mistake when I already corrected you on it in the other thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3829450&postcount=48

Also, the speed of sound violates the second postulate, i.e. it is not invariant. So you cannot just replace c in the Lorentz transform by the speed of sound and get a theory which is consistent with observation.

Why am I re-posting it? Because you don't understand what I'm saying and may never understand apparently. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you... It's not a mistake, it is a fact of a physical wave in medium theory. I'm relaying new information that you've never seen before and you're rejecting it because it is new to you. That number represents the difference between the theories. It comes from having a single reference frame that is "real" instead of multiple reference frames which are valid. But you're not even trying to get it because apparently you think you already know all there is to know in the universe.

Yes the speed of sound violates the second postulate but the second postulate isn't needed for LET because it's a wave in medium theory. The constancy of the second postulate was an illusion in LET. An illusion that was undetectable from within the frame in which it was observed, but still an illusion. Do you not get that LET had both mechanical-waves-in-a-medium and constancy? Have you never thought about that? How is that possible? (hint: that's what I've been trying to help you understand)

And finally, you are wrong about replacing c with the speed of sound and haven't even tried to do the math even though I've given you an experiment with a drawing that shows that the Lorentz transform will work for sound-based observations. More specifically let me state that gamma will work for all percentages of sound as though they are c. In the experiment outlined the total experiment will take gamma longer to complete and only shortening the forward mirror by gamma will result in simultaneous return arrival at the source.

Why do you make pronouncements which you haven't even checked in to? Only an acolyte of a religion not a scientist does that sort of thing. I challenge you to look at the sound experiment I've set up and detailed on this thread.

Prove me wrong... don't just pronounce it like a priest.


But let me make a prediction: You're going to find that I'm right but try your best to avoid using the obvious details I've set out in the experiment. Perhaps in your first attempt you'll say that time is not actually effected by ignoring my specialized clocks described. Then perhaps you'll show it mathematically wrong by not allowing the forward mirror to be moved back by the wind the proper amount. (the replacement for shortening)

Regardless, one way or another you're going to find I'm right and never admit it. Because now it's slipped from science to pride. (or you can prove me wrong about that too)

Additionally, let me ask you a quick question as an aside because it seems so many people don't understand certain things about what gamma really is: What's the fastest way to find gamma for a given percentage of c on a scientific calculator?

 

[NotAName]

As that paper is in support of Lorentz's ether concept, I can't make any sense of what you mean - except if you didn't even look at it, but just wasted your time on writing a long inappropriate response. Is that the cause perhaps?

No, you guys just haven't yet grasped the concept of a mathematical illusion because you've never seen it before. Instead of trying to understand by actually listening you instead respond with what you "know" which has no relevance to the conversation.

Lorentz's ether concept is that ether played a trick on us. A completely mechanical-wave-in-medium was capable of making light appear to be constant for observers when it, in fact, was not.

I've given you enough information to understand it but you guys just aren't trying to use your brains... You just whip out memorization without ever attempting to engage understanding. Until you understand the concept of a mathematical illusion which Lorentz created, you're not going to follow me.

So... explain to me what the heck I'm talking about when I say that Lorentz was describing an illusion mathematically. If you can't then you need to just hush and listen. And actually pay attention and learn.