Does My Wrist Watch Physically Beat Slower?

[Kingfire]

Hello,

Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

I am not sure though.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Hello,

Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

I am not sure though.

In the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) in which the Earth is at rest (we treat the Earth as if it were all by itself, not orbiting in a solar system), clocks that are at rest on the Earth tick at the same rate as the Coordinate Time of the IRF. Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF. So if you are traveling "at a speed close to the speed of light", then you are experiencing Time Dilation meaning your clock takes longer to beat an earthly second than the earthly Time Coordinate of the IRF.

 

[HallsofIvy]

First wrist watches don't beat! What relativity says is that your wrist watch will run slower, your pulse will be slower, you will move slower, as observed from a frame of reference with respect to which you are moving. Of course, from your point of view that person observing you is moving with respect to you and so you will observe his watch running slower, his pulse beating slower, etc.

Yes, this is a "real" result. It has been, for example, experimentally verified that elementary particles that are moving fast with respect to the laboratory have longer lifetimes than those that are stationary with respect to the laboratory.

 

[bobc2]

In the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) in which the Earth is at rest (we treat the Earth as if it were all by itself, not orbiting in a solar system), clocks that are at rest on the Earth tick at the same rate as the Coordinate Time of the IRF. Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF.

O.K. so far.

So if you are traveling "at a speed close to the speed of light", then you are experiencing Time Dilation...

ghwellsjr, not to sound critical, rather just to point out how careful you have to be with the language when communicating this. I know what you mean by your statement and understand it just fine. The moving observer has the experience that nothing unusual is going on with the tick rate of his clock. His proper time is ticking away the same as everyone else's proper time.

...meaning your clock takes longer to beat an earthly second than the earthly Time Coordinate of the IRF.

Being a little more careful you might not want to say that the moving observer has the experience of his clock ticking more slowly than the IRF.
The moving observer would actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own. Each observer has the experience of the other's clock ticking more slowly.

Again, I know the correct meaning you were intending and was just trying to make sure your meaning was understood by Kingfire.

 

[bobc2]

Hello,

Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

I am not sure though.

Kingfire, there are at least two different competing interpretations of special relativity on this forum.

1) First, there is what is known as the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). If you are basing the answer to your question on this interpretation, the answer to your question would be, yes. Yes, your watch physically beats slower. That's because, according to LET, there are time shifts in the transmittal of electrical forces between and within physical objects, resulting in actual changes in speeds of physical interactions, including clock mechanisms (affecting tick rates, etc.).

2) The other interpretation of special relativity is based on the Minkowski 4-dimensional spacetime representation. In this view there is no intrinsic change in clock tick rates. However, different observers (moving relative to each other) live in different 3-D cross-sections of a 4-dimensional universe. We will refer to these as different hyperplanes of simultaneity. If clocks are modeled as 4-D objects, then different hyperplanes of simultaneity will cut across a 4-D clock at different points along the 4-D worldline of that clock (different time points). Thus, different observers will in general read different values on that clock.

These brief comments do not really give you the story, but if you are interested there are those here who could explain this with more clarity and detail.

The hyperplanes for a blue and red observer correspond to the blue X1 axis and the red x1 axis. Three observers pass each other at event A, and each has a different reading for a clock that is at rest in the black inertial reference frame. Each observer is moving along his own X4 axis at the speed of light.

 

[farad]

I don't think Einstein ever intended his Special Relativity theory to apply to the real world. He was proposing an idealised world where things did not obey the laws of nature. He postulated a. A world where matter moves in perpetual motion and b. a world where the speed of light is a constant. From those (and other) imaginary scenarios he worked out a system. Sort of like the computer world 'Second Life'.

We all know that is not the real situation. Clocks keep the same time everywhere and no one moves in perpetual motion.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't think Einstein ever intended his Special Relativity theory to apply to the real world.

He certainly did, and it does, to very high accuracy:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Clocks keep the same time everywhere

No, they don't. This has been experimentally verified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

 

[PeterDonis]

Kingfire, there are at least two different competing interpretations of special relativity on this forum.

I'm not sure that's relevant to the OP, since all of the competing interpretations make the same predictions for all experimental results, including those having to do with time dilation.

 

[ghwellsjr]

In the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) in which the Earth is at rest (we treat the Earth as if it were all by itself, not orbiting in a solar system), clocks that are at rest on the Earth tick at the same rate as the Coordinate Time of the IRF. Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF.

O.K. so far.

So if you are traveling "at a speed close to the speed of light", then you are experiencing Time Dilation...

ghwellsjr, not to sound critical, rather just to point out how careful you have to be with the language when communicating this. I know what you mean by your statement and understand it just fine. The moving observer has the experience that nothing unusual is going on with the tick rate of his clock.

Yes, that's why I first said (and you agreed with me), "Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF", which is another of saying, "clocks that are moving are experiencing Time Dilation". When talking about the observer moving with the clock, are you only going to agree if I say "observers that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF"? People don't tick so I used the equivalent statement, "experiencing Time Dilation". Since both the observer and his clock are experiencing the exact same Time Dilation, the observer's subjective perception of time agrees with his objective observation of his clock. No one is ever aware of the Time Dilation of any clock, not his own or any clock moving with respect to himself.

His proper time is ticking away the same as everyone else's proper time.

No, it's not, unless you can find an IRF in which he and everyone else are traveling at the same constant speed.

...meaning your clock takes longer to beat an earthly second than the earthly Time Coordinate of the IRF.

Being a little more careful you might not want to say that the moving observer has the experience of his clock ticking more slowly than the IRF.
The moving observer would actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own. Each observer has the experience of the other's clock ticking more slowly.

Again, I know the correct meaning you were intending and was just trying to make sure your meaning was understood by Kingfire.

Apparently you do not know the correct meaning I was intending based on your re-interpretation. The moving observer would not actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own. There are so many things wrong with your statement. First off, I never referred to an IRF clock--there is no such thing. Maybe you thought I meant a particular clock that was stationary in the IRF.

That brings me to the second wrong thing. As I said before, no one can ever observe the Time Dilation of any clock, let alone "actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own". I have no idea what you mean by that or why you would think that is what I really intended to say.

Finally, your statement that, "Each observer has the experience of the other's clock ticking more slowly" is so wrong, as I've stated repeatedly.

So I hope Kingfire understands the correct meaning that I am trying to convey and not your incorrect re-interpretation.

 

[farad]

He certainly did, and it does, to very high accuracy:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html



No, they don't. This has been experimentally verified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

The math.ucr.edu site is a great mine of information - thanks.

Oddly no experiment verifies (nor could verify) perpetual motion and a constant speed of light yet these are, as I mentioned, cornerstones of Special Relativity.

The other stuff about Time Dilation and Keating Hafele is not really relevant since it involves acelerated travel.

 

[HallsofIvy]

The math.ucr.edu site is a great mine of information - thanks.

Oddly no experiment verifies (nor could verify) perpetual motion and a constant speed of light yet these are, as I mentioned, cornerstones of Special Relativity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "perpetual motion" as a cornerstone of Special Relativity. The fact that there is NO "perpetual motion" is a matter of the laws of thermodynamics, not relativity.

The other stuff about Time Dilation and Keating Hafele is not really relevant since it involves acelerated travel.

 

[PeterDonis]

Oddly no experiment verifies (nor could verify) ... a constant speed of light

The Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't count?

 

[farad]

The Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't count?

Michelson Morley was not about whether the speed of light was constant. They wanted to see if light traveled the same distance in the same time despite the orientation of the path.

 

[bobc2]

I'm not sure that's relevant to the OP, since all of the competing interpretations make the same predictions for all experimental results, including those having to do with time dilation.

I don't understand why you have to interject that esoteric philosophical commentary. On the contrary, Kingfire specifically wanted to know if it is literally true that clocks tick more slowly.

Kingfire: Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

What do you think he meant when he asked, "Does that mean literally?" So, why is it so important to avoid answering the question Kingfire is obviously driving at?

So, why put the standard operationalist spin on the topic? Why all of this elitist attitude on the forum (Kingfire knows that watches don't "beat" like a clock, so why would anyone have to belittle him over that subtle point?). Lorentz Ether Theory is not at all equivalent to Einstein's special relativity (except for philosophical operationalists who insist on avoiding any reference to physical objects and processes).

Lorentz was intent on providing a quite physical explanation that casts physics in the context of a physical 3-dimensional world evolving in time, explaining constant speed of light for all observers, length contraction and time dilation explicitly as resulting from considerations of transmittal times for forces between objects and within objects. How you can say that is equivalent to Minkowski's geometrization of special relativity just doesn't seem logical. Equivalent outcomes of particular calculations do not eliminate the significance of the difference between the fundamental concepts underlying LET vs. Einstein-MInkowski.

What do you want from physics--the elimination of any discussion or recognition of the historical development of LET and of Einstein-Minkowski special relativity? Should this be allowed only within the university philosophy departments? What a corruption of physics and its pursuit of the description and understanding of physical reality!

You think only the time dilation and length contraction calculations matter--and they come out the same for both LET and Einstein-Minkowski? Try developing the concept of a 4-dimensional curved spacetime from LET. Einstein said essentially that he would not have gotten anywhere with general relativity without Minkowski's 4-dimensional spacetime of special relativity. Oh--but Einstein shouldn't have done it that way--that's just philosophy!

 

[PeterDonis]

They wanted to see if light traveled the same distance in the same time despite the orientation of the path.

And traveling the same distance in the same time doesn't equate to the speed being constant?

 

[PeterDonis]

Kingfire: Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

What do you think he meant when he asked, "Does that mean literally?" So, why is it so important to avoid answering the question Kingfire is obviously driving at?

Because it doesn't have a well-defined answer. What does "literally" mean? What rule do I use to tell me whether the watch is "really" beating slower or only "appears" to beat slower? There is no unique rule for doing that. There is a unique set of rules for predicting actual observables, but Kingfire's question, as far as I can tell, isn't about actual observables. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question; if so, it would help to re-state it in a way that makes clear that it *is* about actual observables.

So, why put the standard operationalist spin on the topic?

Because it focuses on questions we can actually give answers to, instead of questions where we just go round and round about philosophy and never reach any resolution.

Lorentz Ether Theory is not at all equivalent to Einstein's special relativity (except for philosophical operationalists who insist on avoiding any reference to physical objects and processes).

See, here's the thing: you think that "physical objects and processes" has some well-defined meaning independent of the experimental results that tell us *what* physical objects and processes there are. Theories about such things are worthless without experiments to back them up. If experimental results are consistent with more than one interpretation in terms of "physical objects and processes", then the correct answer is that *we do not know for sure* what physical objects and processes there are. I would rather just admit that openly.

What do you want from physics--the elimination of any discussion or recognition of the historical development of LET and of Einstein-Minkowski special relativity?

Such discussion is fine, but it's not physics. It's the history of physics. The two are not the same.

 

[arindamsinha]

...
My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

Think about this - if the wrist watch does not get any slower, what does "time does slow down" mean? (This is all compared to someone who is not traveling, of course, as the person with the traveling wrist watch has no means of detecting this.)

 

[HallsofIvy]

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

What do you mean by "every earthly second"? That's the crucial point!

 

[Vandam]

Such discussion is fine, but it's not physics. It's the history of physics. The two are not the same.

Are you telling us here that Einstein's SR didn't contribute anything to physics, but a lot to philosophy?
I explained you elsewhere what Einstein did for physics as far as the Lorentztransformations mations are concerned, but you stay stuck to your calculator. Physics is more than mathematics. But you refuse to accept that.

 

[The Jericho]

George Wells from Bishop's Stortford?

 

[Vandam]

If experimental results are consistent with more than one interpretation in terms of "physical objects and processes", then the correct answer is that *we do not know for sure* what physical objects and processes there are. I would rather just admit that openly.

What do you call an experimental result? What your calculator tells you?
I asked you to show me an another thread where in the ETHER context you read the primed time coordinates (Lorentz' Local time). You cannot. The numbers of your calculator have to make sense in the physical ether LET, but they don't. Lorentz knew it and admitted it. But you just don't get it.

 

[PeterDonis]

Are you telling us here that Einstein's SR didn't contribute anything to physics, but a lot to philosophy?

Read what I said. I didn't say that. All I said was that the historical development of physics is not the same as physics itself.

Physics is more than mathematics. But you refuse to accept that.

If you're going to continue to misunderstand what I say, there's not much point in discussion.

What do you call an experimental result? What your calculator tells you?

Experimental results are things like those referred to here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

I asked you to show me an another thread where in the ETHER context you read the primed time coordinates (Lorentz' Local time). You cannot. The numbers of your calculator have to make sense in the physical ether LET, but they don't. Lorentz knew it and admitted it. But you just don't get it.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you link to the other thread?

 

[Vandam]

First wrist watches don't beat! What relativity says is that your wrist watch will run slower, your pulse will be slower, you will move slower, as observed from a frame of reference with respect to which you are moving. Of course, from your point of view that person observing you is moving with respect to you and so you will observe his watch running slower, his pulse beating slower, etc.

Yes, this is a "real" result. It has been, for example, experimentally verified that elementary particles that are moving fast with respect to the laboratory have longer lifetimes than those that are stationary with respect to the laboratory.

Correct.
Just to make sure we agree on 'observe':
The observer observes what the 'time indications on clocks' are, part of his 3D world. The time indications on the clocks are (space-like) events part of the observer's 3D world. The events existed before the observer 'observes' them.

 

[Vandam]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you link to the other thread?

You only keep on telling me that the one coordinates are ether coordiates, the other 'local'.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4206455&postcount=113

Show me where the local times are in LET.

Tell me what the difference is between ether coordinate and 'the primed coordinate'. Where is that primed coordinate for the traveler in LET? I do not see that. And it is impossible to see it in LET, because it is only a mathematical fictuous number. Einstein solved that problem.

 

[PeterDonis]

You only keep on telling me that the one coordinates are ether coordiates, the other 'local'.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4206455&postcount=113

That's a post by DaleSpam, not me. I agree with what he said, but if you want someone to expound further on it, you should ask him.

 

[Vandam]

That's a post by DaleSpam, not me. I agree with what he said, but if you want someone to expound further on it, you should ask him.

Sorry about that.

But if you agree with him you might perhaps tell me what the primed coordinates are in LET? What do they mean for the traveler in the ether? His wristwatch time etc.?

Lorentz' quote: <<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 we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t.>>

The best way to understand time coordinates is to synchronise clocks at the 'origin of measurement'. The primed coordinates then are the red wristwatch time and proper measuring stick space coordinates... in his own red 3D world. Not the green 'ether' 3D world. Red traveler has to wait .289 wristwatch time units to have event A in his Spaceworld. You can never get that in a LET scenario. The primed time coordinates (.289,.289) only make sense if you let go the ether. Considering the green ether through red time .289 doesn't make sense for the 0289 space coordinate, because in that ether world event A is not part of that world.
Only in SR it makes sense if you consider a real 3D world through event A and red .289 wristwatch time. And that tells you that the event A is considered in a green future world for Mr Green, but is already real in the present red world for Mr Red. Block universe, whether you like it or not...
Or do you have another scenario for Mr Red and his time coordinate?

@Kingfire
To link the above to the opening post:
Below I quickly sketched a Loedel diagram for the same LT coordinates. You see that neither the red nor the green worldline is stretched (and definitely not contracted either): In 4D spacetime the spacing of the time units are equal on all worldlines. Proper time is never dilated.
Time dilation occurs because of the different directions of 3D worlds of simultaneous events in 4D block spacetime. The time indications on the clocks are events that have fixed locations in 4D block universe, but because of the different directions of worldlines in 4D space, the traveler events of the respective worldlines will have other (pre-existing) 'clock with time indication' event in their respective 3D worlds.
(Note: the 3D worlds with their -obviously space-like) clock events are already 'out there' in 4D block spacetime before the 'observer' literally sees the clock events. (A 'lichtcone' scenario only tells you which events have a possible causal relationship with your 'now' event'. But that's not important in this topic)

 

[PeterDonis]

But if you agree with him you might perhaps tell me what the primed coordinates are in LET?

I'm not an expert on LET so I don't know if I can answer this; but as I understand it, the convention in LET is to write coordinates in the "ether frame" as unprimed, and coordinates in any other frame which is moving relative to the ether as primed. So if some observer is moving relative to the ether, the coordinates in the frame in which that observer is at rest would be written as primed coordinates.

What do they mean for the traveler in the ether? His wristwatch time etc.?

Since the observer is at rest in the primed frame under this convention, t' would be the same, numerically, as proper time as measured by the observer, which you appear to refer to as "wristwatch time". But there is still a logical distinction between the *coordinate* time, t', which is a number assigned to an event, and the *proper* time of the observer, which is something he directly observes.

Lorentz' quote: <<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 we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t.>>

As far as I can tell, what Lorentz meant here was that he treated the "ether frame" as being somehow special, physically, whereas Einstein did not; Einstein treated all inertial frames as physically equivalent. So for Lorentz, the coordinate time in the ether frame had a special physical status, as "true time"; the coordinate time in any other frame did not. Einstein made no such distinction. That's how I read it, anyway.

However, none of that makes any difference as far as the diagrams you are talking about. See below.

You can never get that in a LET scenario. The primed time coordinates (.289,.289) only make sense if you let go the ether.

I don't see how this follows at all. You can calculate the primed time coordinates in the ether frame just as well as in any other frame. You can also predict that that primed time coordinate will be numerically equal, as I said above, to the proper time measured by the observer at rest in the primed frame. All that is independent of any "interpretation".

LET makes different assertions about the underlying "physical reality" than the "block universe" interpretation does, but the primed time coordinate, in itself, doesn't necessarily say anything about underlying physical reality; it just enables us to predict a particular observed quantity, the "wristwatch time" of an observer at rest in the primed frame. So the second statement of yours in the quote just above is not correct as you state it: a correct statement would be "the primed time coordinates only make sense according to the block universe interpretation if you let go the ether".

 

[Vandam]

I'm not an expert on LET so I don't know if I can answer this; but as I understand it, the convention in LET is to write coordinates in the "ether frame" as unprimed, and coordinates in any other frame which is moving relative to the ether as primed. So if some observer is moving relative to the ether, the coordinates in the frame in which that observer is at rest would be written as primed coordinates.

O.K.

Since the observer is at rest in the primed frame under this convention, t' would be the same, numerically, as proper time as measured by the observer, which you appear to refer to as "wristwatch time". But there is still a logical distinction between the *coordinate* time, t', which is a number assigned to an event, and the *proper* time of the observer, which is something he directly observes.

O.K., but there is no distinction if you synchronise the clocks as I did.
I can give you an example if you use time-coordinates that give different numbers as the clock time indications of the events the observer reads, but that makes no difference. I makes it only more fifficult for the forum members to follow.

As far as I can tell, what Lorentz meant here was that he treated the "ether frame" as being somehow special, physically, whereas Einstein did not; Einstein treated all inertial frames as physically equivalent. So for Lorentz, the coordinate time in the ether frame had a special physical status, as "true time"; the coordinate time in any other frame did not. Einstein made no such distinction. That's how I read it, anyway.

And that's how I read it.

However, none of that makes any difference as far as the diagrams you are talking about.

I don't agree

See below.

I don't see how this follows at all.

That's very strange because I just all explained it to you...

You can calculate the primed time coordinates in the ether frame just as well as in any other frame. You can also predict that that primed time coordinate will be numerically equal, as I said above, to the proper time measured by the observer at rest in the primed frame. All that is independent of any "interpretation".

Of course you can calculate it, but it is not independent of any interpretation. dee below.

LET makes different assertions about the underlying "physical reality" than the "block universe" interpretation does, but the primed time coordinate, in itself, doesn't necessarily say anything about underlying physical reality; it just enables us to predict a particular observed quantity, the "wristwatch time" of an observer at rest in the primed frame. So the second statement of yours in the quote just above is not correct as you state it: a correct statement would be "the primed time coordinates only make sense according to the block universe interpretation if you let go the ether".

I can not agree with that. Lorentz admitted that the 'true time' and the 'local time' have to be treated ('interpreted' if you like) the same way. Only SR does that. Not LET. That's the whole point in the SR versus LET. If there would be no difference there would be no Einstein, nor SR.

You would be correct it you compare Galilean transformation and ether world. After transformation you no not have to drop the 'Newton' ether to make sense of the transformation coordinates. But with Lorentz Transformation that doesn't work.

 

[PeterDonis]

O.K., but there is no distinction if you synchronise the clocks as I did.

Please read carefully. I said a *logical* distinction, not a *numerical* distinction. I agree that, given your synchronization of clocks, there is no numerical distinction. But there *is* a logical distinction.

That's very strange because I just all explained it to you...

You have not "explained" anything. You have continued to point out features of spacetime diagrams, relativity of simultaneity, etc. that we all understand and all agree on. You have *not* given any argument for how those features *require* a "block universe" interpretation. You have only argued that a block universe interpretation is consistent with them. That's not sufficient to justify the claims you have made.

Lorentz admitted that the 'true time' and the 'local time' have to be treated ('interpreted' if you like) the same way. Only SR does that. Not LET.

When Lorentz made that statement, *not one single actual prediction changed*. What you are calling "SR" (which should really be called "SR with the block universe interpretation") and what you are calling LET (which should really be called "SR with the LET interpretation") make exactly the same predictions for all experimental results.

Your claim appears to be that we can somehow know which interpretation is correct without any experiment that can decide between them. My claim is that if two interpretations agree on all experimental results, *we do not know* which one is correct, unless and until we can find an experiment that gives different results depending on which interpretation is correct.

Your claim appears to be that we have some knowledge of "physical reality" that doesn't come to us through experiments. My claim is that we don't; obviously the content of our knowledge is more than just a list of experimental results, but our justification for making *any* claim about "physical reality" ultimately has to come down to some piece of knowledge that we got from experiments. If we can't decide between different claims about physical reality by doing an experiment, then we can't decide.

I don't see any prospect of coming to agreement on these claims, but I think I've captured them reasonably well.

After transformation you no not have to drop the 'Newton' ether to make sense of the transformation coordinates. But with Lorentz Transformation that doesn't work.

It doesn't work for you, perhaps. It works for me just fine.

 

[Dale]

You only keep on telling me that the one coordinates are ether coordiates, the other 'local'.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4206455&postcount=113

I would certainly be glad to continue that discussion in the other thread if you feel that you are sufficiently prepared to discuss it now. However, you did leave in a pretty big huff so I thought you would probably just want to drop it. Either way is fine by me.