# LET and LT are incompatible

## Main Question or Discussion Point

On PF I came across a little discussion about Lorentz Transformations, Lorentz Ether Theory and SR. (The thread has been locked. Strange that I am attracted to threads that have been locked...)

Two days after previous one was locked:

I only want to react to the following:
First I give you a diagram of the setup:
Red observer travels at 0,5C. A star at 0,5 lightyears.

--------------------------------------------------------

================================================================
Originally Posted by NotAName
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3827590&postcount=30
...
According to Lorentz, a beam of light travelling to that distant star would take [/].5 years[/B] in the stationary frame and would take .433 years in the moving frame.

According to Einstein, a beam of light travelling to that distant star would take .[/]5 years[/B] 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.
...
=================================================================
Originally Posted by DaleSpam
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3829450&postcount=48
Originally Posted by NotAName
That is primarily true, except not about arrival time of light in this one particular instance.

The motion is already part of the equation and therefore adding the motion of the distant planet would be a duplication in the context of LET. In LET, light travels in a medium that is stationary. Because the light travels in the stationary frame alone, it will take .5 years to arrive in the stationary frame and .433 years in the moving frame, period.[/QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. LET uses the exact same formula to transform coordinates from one frame to the other as SR, the Lorentz transform. In this case, the Lorentz transform of (t,x)=(.5,.5) is (t',x')=(.289,.289). There is no addition of motion of the distant planet nor anything else, it is simply a straight transformation of coordinates which applies for both theories. The light ray takes .289 years in the moving frame in both LET and SR.
...

=================================================================

I will concentrate on DaleSpam's "This is incorrect."
and his
"The light ray takes .289 years in the moving frame in both LET and SR."

[/B]DaleSPam is wrong[/B]. The point NotAName tries to make is correct. DaleSPam uses blindly LT calculations and not unike so many others on this PF he loves numbers but closes his books just at the moment the interesting and most important part starts.
On PF I had to read quite a few times that Lorentz and Einstein 'use the same math and therefore make the same experimental predictions'. I would be very cautious with such a statement. The LT give time and space information that you can not apply in LET in a consistent way. Well, at least not the way DaleSpam does. DaleSpam's answer is a good example. His LT calculation is correct, but makes only sense in SR, not in LET. I explain:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Event A = photon is at the star.
Coordinates in absolute stationary frame: (0,5;0,5).
This means that at event G the green observer's clock indicates 0,5. In his reference frame the distance to the star (event A) is 0,5.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

We put these coordinates in the LT:
Event A in the the red traveler's reference fame: (0,289;0,289).
This means that in the traveler's red moving reference frame the star is 0,289 space units from the red traveler at 0,289 time units.
Does it make sense in LET?

---------------------------------------------------------

On this diagram is illustrated what DaleSpam's Lorentz transformations really mean: the time and space lengths have only a correct meaning in relation to the space oordinates of a totally different event than event R4: event R3 ! At event 3 the red traveler will have 0,289 on his clock, and the distance to event A is 0,289.
Problem is: event E3 is not part of the ether fundamentalist's 0,5 green world... And in the 0,5 green ether world the 0,289 distance makes no sense either.
Conclusion: Does the LT make sense in LET? No.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What can the red observer (an ether fundamentalist) at R4 do with the (0,289;0,289) result of DaleSPam's LT calculation?
He has not many options. At event R4 only the etherworld of the horizontal green line exists, in which event A occurs. Therefore red observer has no other option than to accept the 0,289 space coordinate as the distance from event R4 to event A. And in that context the 0,289 time is his clock indication at R4 (suppose for a moment that his clock is in a box and he can not check whether the LT /calculation/prediction is correct or not.)
Must we indeed force event R3 on R4? You must be joking! At E4 the traveler is at the planet Q. At E3 only at planet P. You can not transport, nor project the content of event E3 to event 4. Will you tell space explorator Armstrong Jr. on his arrival at planet Q that he has not landed on planet Q, but on planet P? That's ridiculous. Perhaps you want to project only the the space length into the ether frame, but not the content of event R3? Ridiculous. Lorentz new it. The Lorentz Tranformations are one of the most fantastic inventions in history of scientific thought, but Lorentz didn't know what to do with it in his ether world! So what does he do: "The coordinates are only virtual mathematical working tools, fictuous tranformations, a mathematical illusion....!" Superb physics! Even if in LET you consider the LT calculations as 'abstract tools', at the end you have to give the outcome some physical definition in the ether frame. Otherwise your calculations are useless (or better: you realize LET is useless). If you cannot fill the result of your income calculation in your IRS tax form, then your formula and the tax form are incompatible. LET and LT are incompatible.

------------------------------------------------

What's the correct time indication on traveler's clock at event R4?
Answer: t' = t√(1-v^2/c^2) = 0,5√(1-0,5^2) = 0,433. At R4 a poloraid snapshot of the red observer's clock in the box should confirm this.

But again: what does this mean in an ether world? Must red traveler say that the distance from R4 to A equals 0,433 to achieve speed of light?
Let's ask the ether fundamentalist how he measures constant speed of light. "Oh, that's an easy one: due to the ether wind my measuring stick gets shorter by the same factor gamma (= 1,1547), and this makes me measure the same speed of light.... ". I know that's what you can read all over the place. And it sounds fantastic. But , uh... ever done the calculus?
The sketch shows at the top a 0,5 measuring stick shortened (by a factor 1,1547) to 0,433. and of course all units on the stick get shorter. Unfortunately that shorter stick measures event A at 0,289 distance, not the required 0,433 to measure speed of light! What can the ether traveler do with the measured 0,289 distance to event A ? NOTHING. Not even measure an 'illusion' of speed of light!
LET doesn't work.

--------------------------------------------------

It gets worse. The traveler should also measure constant speed of light for a photon going in the opposite direction. LET can never get that right. LET is a disaster for LT.

And how does reciprocity of length contraction and time dilation between stationary and moving frame work in LET? In LET physically contracted sticks measure stationary sticks longer, not shorter. And for the traveler's slow running time the stationary 'ether' time runs faster. Only solution is to make everything an illusion: reciprocity in abstract mathematical calculations. Great physics indeed!

-------------------------------------------

What distance DOES red traveler measure at event E4?
In the red traveler's reference frame his time coordinate (0,433) corresponds with the time coordinate of event B (0,433; 0,433)! Take note that event B is a completely different event than event A. At B the photon is already at planet W. Red traveler measures a 0,433 distance from R4 to event B. Not to event A. The red traveler ether fundamentalist will never believe this because for him event B is not part of the ether world at R4. Furthermore, relative to the ether world, event B lays in the future and the future can not exist yet for him at R4. (Einstein/Minkowski will prove he is wrong).

Conclusion: In LET 0,289 nor 0,433 gives us an acceptable result to work with to measure speed of light. In LET the LT are worthless and useless.

Let me get one thing clear: I am not saying the LT are wrong. On the contrary, the heart and meat of LT is relativity of simultaneity: the time coordinates change. But only SR is the personification of this. In fact, to put it bluntly, in LET the 'relativity of simultaneity' is wiped out, censured to save the ether wind, and it doesn't worlk. LET with LT is fraud. Worse, pardon my wording to get my point across, but it's raping the LT for the satisfaction of LET ! And you still can not obtain constant speed of light unless you claim everything is an illusion. A disaster for physics!

-----------------------------------------

Now Einstein/Minkowski step in. LT = SR,. No LET. No illusion.
In the green reference frame (=green 3D spaceworld, or 'reality' in the common everyday meaning of everyday reality) the photon reaches the star after 0,5 time units. In the red reference frame (= red 3D spaceworld ) the photon reaches the star after 0,289 time units.
That's how both observers measure the speed of light. But these figures only make sense with different 3D worlds. In LET that doesn't work.
-----------------------------------------------

At R4 the traveler's clock indication gives 0,433. And his reference frame is a complete different 3D space world than green's 3D ether world.

=====
If you do not accept that, the consequences are devastating and disastrous. You will spend -sorry- waste money at making video's that are a shame for SR physics. Like this one:

You can skip the first part and go directly to 6:30 minutes.

Fantastic isn't it?
Time stationary frame = 12 sec
Time movig spaceship = 9 seconds.
Gamma is 1,333
Length contraction of 12 ls (lightseconds) ruler makes it 9ls length.
No problem.

And at about 7:15 min the video guy says: "The rulers aboard are contracted just enough to make the measurement work."

Happy?

NO WAY!

It's wrong.It doesn't work that way. The guys who made it should be prosecuted because they are part of the thousands of people who try to make us believe that with contracting rulers in the ether SR is explained. Forget it. Fraud.

Look, I'm not going to spend another weekend at explaining the mistakes that are made in that last part of the video. Same mistake as DaleSpam's line of thought. Draw a Loedel diagram and you will see it doesn't work. I hope that Bobc2 will come to help here. I know I should draw diagrams for everything I say here because otherwise there's definitely no hope you see the light. But my time is limited on this forum. Especially if there's no support for what I say.
If I can not convince anybody with these last posts that Block universe is the only correct interpretation of Einstein/Minkowski, I leave it by that. Here and now.
======

Dalespam got the LT correct. But only if we forget LET and accept two different equally valid (with that I also mean physical real) frames of simultaneous events Only Einstein/Minkowski got that right. Not Lorentz. To put it bluntly: that's why at the end of the game Einstein is Einstein, and Lorentz the loser.
If the green coordinates of event A are given, and you put those coordinates through the LT calculus, then you get (0,289;0,289). You may say: "In the red traveler's reference frame event A is after 0,289 time units 0,289 distance from red traveler. That's correct. But in LET that means NOTHING. LET and LT are incompatible. Only SR the LT are compatible. LT = SR.

Lorentz knew it: 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."

And Lorentz knew Einstein got it right on his own: "I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he would have conceived it even if the work of all his predecessors in the theory of this field had not been done at all. His work is in this respect independent of the previous theories."

DaleSpam's wrong answer for LET shows that LT does not give you the exact answers for LET. His quotes "This is incorrect" and "The light ray takes .289 years in the moving frame in both LET and SR." are wrong. DaleSpam's (0,289;0,289) answer is only valid for SR, not LET.
(I'm wondering what DaleSpam's scientific interpretation for LET with LT means. That might be intersting in the context of what he once said about me: "The scientific content of your posts appears to be 0." (I forgive him because he said 'appears', which means 'it looks so but it's not'. But if he's a solipsist one can never be sure...;))

What NotAName tried to convey was correct. And nobody on PF believed him. He tried to explain his point by all means (I admit I can not follow all his argumements, and unfortunately he never uses a diagram. Nobody verified DaleSpam's answer. and the discussion became very confusing. Finally NotANAme had to face the verdict: both threads were locked!

After 100 years of SR it is flabbergasting to read on a SR forum that LET is a valid alternative for SR "because the LT calculation give the same results in both theories". Lorentz and Einstein 'use the same math', yes, of course, but LT mean nothing in an ether theory. So, you can not see LET and SR as different but equally valid interpretations for the LT. There is more to physics than mathematics! Of course there are quite a few PF members that do not accept this. I will not waste more time on them.
-Forget about ether and time and space coordinates as mathematical abstractions/illusions. The coordinates are real.
-Event R3 is real, and event B is real, really physically touchable present in a real 3D spaceworld. With a common everyday meaning of 'real'. Etc.
-The red reference frame is real, not 'only' a geometric or mathematical abstract illusion. (If you stubbornly want to use an ether terminology: the red slope is the red observer's ether world...)
-In the stationary reference system (3D spaceworld) the length contraction of the traveler's mesuring stick is not due to ether wind or mathematical abstractions, but due to real relativity of simultaneity. I.e. events of past and future 3D spaceworlds of the moving measuring stick are now in my present 'stationary' reference frame (3D spaceworld) etc.
-There is reciprocity of length contraction and time dilation between different physically real 3D spaceworlds.
-Light speed does not 'appear' constant, but is really constant. With the LT constancy of speed of light can not be obtained by means of (due to ether wind) contracted measuring rods measuring more space. In SR the speed of light in all reference frames (3D spaceworlds) is measured with proper length measuring rods and proper time ticking clocks. There is no alternative.
-Moving observers never measure with rods that are contracted, nor with clocks that run slow. Only other observers in their 3D spaceworlds will have contracted moving traveler's rods and slower time.
-The 'principle of relativity' is real, not 'apparent' in moving systems.
-All reference frames (3D spaceworlds) are equivalent and cross each other in 4D spacetime. They are all observer independent realities. (But if you want to make the same mistake as Lorentz did: make all the 3D spaceworlds abstract/illusion, although solipsists can get away with that.)
Therefore: LT = SR = real relativity of simultaneity = real Block Universe.

(More thoughts about time coordinates, see my post:https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4056233&postcount=22-

Petkov wrote a few interesting papers for further reading:
1/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610046.pdf
2/ http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Petkov_PetkovFQXi2.pdf
3/ http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf
4/ http://spacetimecentre.org/vpetkov/reality.html

Last edited by a moderator:

Related Special and General Relativity News on Phys.org
Dale
Mentor
NotAName was wrong, as I demonstrated satisfactorily in the other thread.

Your post here is too long to deal with, but LET, as it is commonly understood today, uses the LT just like SR. The only difference being the designation of one inertial frame as the prefered "aether" frame. If you are attacking something else then what you are attacking is a strawman, not LET.

Look, I am not an LET apologist. I prefer the block universe interpretation. I just do not make the faulty assumption that my preference for an interpretation makes that interpretation right. As you say, there is more to physics than mathematics, there is also experimental results. LET and the block universe have the same math and they predict the same outcome for any experiment, so they are physically indistinguishable and equally supported by the evidence. The choice of interpretation is one of personal philosophy, not physics.

NotAName was wrong, as I demonstrated satisfactorily in the other thread.

Your post here is too long to deal with, but LET, as it is commonly understood today, uses the LT just like SR. The only difference being the designation of one inertial frame as the prefered "aether" frame. If you are attacking something else then what you are attacking is a strawman, not LET.

Look, I am not an LET apologist. I prefer the block universe interpretation. I just do not make the faulty assumption that my preference for an interpretation makes that interpretation right. As you say, there is more to physics than mathematics, there is also experimental results. LET and the block universe have the same math and they predict the same outcome for any experiment, so they are physically indistinguishable and equally supported by the evidence. The choice of interpretation is one of personal philosophy, not physics.
I forgot to mention that you can post whatever you want as comment, I'm not interested in what you say. Have fun.

ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus