| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sam Wormley |
 Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SRorLTAT |
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al wrote:
[quote:b5f8dd11fe]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites
(currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.> --
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
[/quote:b5f8dd11fe]
But isn't it that Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory
which Retic is supporting can also explain the GPS
results??
Isn't it that Special Relativity and Lorentz Aether Theory
can be derived from one another?
What's the proof that Special Relativity is the right one? What's
the experimental data that can refute the Lorentz Aether Theory
once and for all??
Pls. someone clarify. Many thanks
SoL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gregory L. Hansen |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1109823174.275270.40630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
SRorLTAT <einsteinaether@go.com> wrote:
[quote:9f4c34e0b0]
Uncle Al wrote:
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites
(currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.> --
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
But isn't it that Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory
which Retic is supporting can also explain the GPS
results??
Isn't it that Special Relativity and Lorentz Aether Theory
can be derived from one another?
What's the proof that Special Relativity is the right one? What's
the experimental data that can refute the Lorentz Aether Theory
once and for all??
Pls. someone clarify. Many thanks
SoL
[/quote:9f4c34e0b0]
Lorentz's aether theory is a theory concerning electromagnetism, and in
matters of electromagnetism makes the same sorts of predictions as
relativity. But LET does not say anything in particular about gravity or
the nuclear forces. Maybe it could be spruced up to do so, for instance
by adding more aethers, but I'm not aware of any successful attempts to do
so.
The fundamental distinction with an aether theory versus a field theory is
that aether is "stuff" with a rest frame. But when you calculate
observable things with Lorentz's aether theory, the rest frame drops out--
it has its own kind of relativity principle. The aether is unobservable
and no reference to its rest frame need be made, so what is the basis of a
claim that it exists? It's an historical artifact, an evolution of
theoretical thinking that included an aether frame that did matter, but
the properties of the aether had to be modified in light of experiment.
Relativity concerns the transformations of space and time, and the realm
therefore is not just electromagnetism, but all of mechanics. If the
strong force didn't transform the way special relativity says it should,
special relativity would have been disproven. If the weak force didn't
transform the way special relativity says it should, then special
relativity would have been disproven. If any new force not yet discovered
doesn't transform the way special relativity says it should, then special
relativity would be disproven. That universal applicability gives many
more ways to test it and pleases the intellect to think it's found
something important rather than cobbling together special cases for one
observation or another.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gregory L. Hansen |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1109891618.148176.46840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
SRorLTAT <einsteinaether@go.com> wrote:
[quote:c04afcdf2e]
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Lorentz's aether theory is a theory concerning electromagnetism, and
in
matters of electromagnetism makes the same sorts of predictions as
relativity. But LET does not say anything in particular about
gravity or
the nuclear forces. Maybe it could be spruced up to do so, for
instance
by adding more aethers, but I'm not aware of any successful attempts
to do
so.
Lorentz's Ether Theory explained that the reason for the MMX
null result is due to the instrument stretching in response
to gravity. This is somewhat confusing. Can't a person see
the object or instrument stretching? Can't it be measured??
[/quote:c04afcdf2e]
Shrinking in response to aether flow. Everything, including the observer,
would shrink by the same factor regardless of individual material
properties.
[quote:c04afcdf2e]
Another thing. Can't time effects be added in Lorentz Ether
Theory such that it can explain the time dilation effects of
SR too such as the GPS thing?
[/quote:c04afcdf2e]
Time is also transformed, according to Lorentz in his 1904 paper. But at
that point the theory had nothing to do with gravity.
Gravitational effects probably could be added in some way, but I'm not
really sure how to do that in a way that maintains a consistent world
view. I mean, you could suppose the lumeniferous aether is compressed
around a planet just as an atmosphere is, but that would be supposing a
force not transmitted mechanically by "stuff". Maybe LeSage's
gravitational aether could push the lumeniferous aether to the planet, and
changes in lumeniferous density could be related to time rates or
something.
There must be some way to make it work. But so what if there is?
[quote:c04afcdf2e]
Maybe LET is in an undeveloped stage with no conceptual
foundation. That doesn't mean it is not right. It's just that
it's not yet developed.
[/quote:c04afcdf2e]
What do you mean by "right"? Do you mean the theory describes how nature
REALLY works, gives us a glimpse at the Cosmic Blueprints? That criterion
is meaningless. Even if there is some definite underlying "reality" that
can be described by a mathematical theory, we can never know if we got it
right.
But (as far as I know) the aether has started seeing serious use in
physical theory by Descartes. That's around 400 years ago. So it's not
like it's the neglected new kid. New aethers were proposed to explain
every little thing like electricity and heat. Descartes' gravitational
theory involved whirlpools of aether pushing the planets in their orbits.
It was the dominant paradigm until the 20th century.
[quote:c04afcdf2e]
Relativity concerns the transformations of space and time, and the
realm
therefore is not just electromagnetism, but all of mechanics. If the
strong force didn't transform the way special relativity says it
should,
special relativity would have been disproven. If the weak force
didn't
You mean QCD uses relativity? Can you give an example of how it
uses it? Are you referring to relativistic quantum field theory?
But since the quarks have not been seen. How do you prove the
behavior can't be explained by for example an enhanced LET model
or others?
[/quote:c04afcdf2e]
The standard model of particle physics is assumed to transform by Lorentz
transformations. The standard model includes electromagnetic, strong, and
weak interactions, and does a very good job of describing pretty much
everything relevant that we've been able to measure so far.
An example of a breakdown would be if the time dilation of particles is
different depending on whether they decay by an electromagnetic process
(like muons) or a strong force process (like pions). We have to be a
little careful there because if we assume Lorentz aether theory that will
affect the rulers and clocks we use to make our measurements. But if we
use the same instruments to examine different decay modes, a discrepency
might be seen.
[quote:c04afcdf2e]
transform the way special relativity says it should, then special
relativity would have been disproven. If any new force not yet
discovered
doesn't transform the way special relativity says it should, then
special
relativity would be disproven. That universal applicability gives
many
more ways to test it and pleases the intellect to think it's found
something important rather than cobbling together special cases for
one
observation or another.
What if you can use other models to explain the relativistic effects.
[/quote:c04afcdf2e]
Then you'll have another model that can explain the relativistic effects.
[quote:c04afcdf2e]What is the best candidate do you think can explain the data not
using Special Relativity?
[/quote:c04afcdf2e]
I haven't been keeping current. You might ask Paul Stowe if he's hanging
around.
[quote:c04afcdf2e]Isn't it SR in particles is primarily
due to the fact that moving particles can last longer because
time slows down. But what if the particles don't really last
long in the first place due to it being just effects from the
Aether. What would you know??
[/quote:c04afcdf2e]
You would make detailed predictions stemming from a model under
investigation, and compare those predictions with data. That's all you
can know about the validity of the model, other than asserting personal
preferences.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SRorLTAT |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
[quote:5d8b47bbe9]Lorentz's aether theory is a theory concerning electromagnetism, and
in
matters of electromagnetism makes the same sorts of predictions as
relativity. But LET does not say anything in particular about
gravity or
the nuclear forces. Maybe it could be spruced up to do so, for
instance
by adding more aethers, but I'm not aware of any successful attempts
to do
so.
[/quote:5d8b47bbe9]
Lorentz's Ether Theory explained that the reason for the MMX
null result is due to the instrument stretching in response
to gravity. This is somewhat confusing. Can't a person see
the object or instrument stretching? Can't it be measured??
Another thing. Can't time effects be added in Lorentz Ether
Theory such that it can explain the time dilation effects of
SR too such as the GPS thing?
Maybe LET is in an undeveloped stage with no conceptual
foundation. That doesn't mean it is not right. It's just that
it's not yet developed.
[quote:5d8b47bbe9]Relativity concerns the transformations of space and time, and the
realm
therefore is not just electromagnetism, but all of mechanics. If the
strong force didn't transform the way special relativity says it
should,
special relativity would have been disproven. If the weak force
didn't[/quote:5d8b47bbe9]
You mean QCD uses relativity? Can you give an example of how it
uses it? Are you referring to relativistic quantum field theory?
But since the quarks have not been seen. How do you prove the
behavior can't be explained by for example an enhanced LET model
or others?
[quote:5d8b47bbe9]transform the way special relativity says it should, then special
relativity would have been disproven. If any new force not yet
discovered
doesn't transform the way special relativity says it should, then
special
relativity would be disproven. That universal applicability gives
many
more ways to test it and pleases the intellect to think it's found
something important rather than cobbling together special cases for
one
observation or another.
[/quote:5d8b47bbe9]
What if you can use other models to explain the relativistic effects.
What is the best candidate do you think can explain the data not
using Special Relativity? Isn't it SR in particles is primarily
due to the fact that moving particles can last longer because
time slows down. But what if the particles don't really last
long in the first place due to it being just effects from the
Aether. What would you know??
Sol |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Creighton Hogg |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 3 Mar 2005, SRorLTAT wrote:
[quote:6b4ef581f9]
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Lorentz's aether theory is a theory concerning electromagnetism, and
in
matters of electromagnetism makes the same sorts of predictions as
relativity. But LET does not say anything in particular about
gravity or
the nuclear forces. Maybe it could be spruced up to do so, for
instance
by adding more aethers, but I'm not aware of any successful attempts
to do
so.
Lorentz's Ether Theory explained that the reason for the MMX
null result is due to the instrument stretching in response
to gravity. This is somewhat confusing. Can't a person see
the object or instrument stretching? Can't it be measured??
Another thing. Can't time effects be added in Lorentz Ether
Theory such that it can explain the time dilation effects of
SR too such as the GPS thing?
Maybe LET is in an undeveloped stage with no conceptual
foundation. That doesn't mean it is not right. It's just that
it's not yet developed.
Relativity concerns the transformations of space and time, and the
realm
therefore is not just electromagnetism, but all of mechanics. If the
strong force didn't transform the way special relativity says it
should,
special relativity would have been disproven. If the weak force
didn't
You mean QCD uses relativity? Can you give an example of how it
uses it? Are you referring to relativistic quantum field theory?
But since the quarks have not been seen. How do you prove the
behavior can't be explained by for example an enhanced LET model
or others?
[/quote:6b4ef581f9]
Quarks have been seen just as clearly as electrons and protons have been
seen: through scattering. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:05 pm
|
|