metaresearch.org — As the relativity of motion is taught today, Einstein's special relativity has been observationally confirmed so often that there is no longer reason to doubt it. However, the chief competitor theory known as Lorentzian relativity has passed those same observational tests.
Oct 6, 2006 View in Crawl 4
xbdvxOct 6, 2006
etymxris, there are a few problems with this:1) The abstract states that LR needs an ether. The ether is the medium wherein everything exists. Rather than there be merely a void between particles, there exists the ether. (see: <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether)</a> But an experiment done in Texas in the latter part of the 20th century attempted to find it but could not (I'm attepting to find a reference on the web, also to no avail).2) The author uses satellites as an example of universal time. He says they are all timed according to "universal time" (which I don't think refers to LR universal time, see: <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_time">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_time</a> ). The author finds it strange that they are all set to the same time while being in different reference frames. IMO, they're not really in very different reference frames because they are all going about the same speed. That is, when you compare their speed to that of light, they're all going basically the same speed. Therefore, it makes sense that the time between one satellite and another would be different.It's interesting to note here that satellites and an observer on earth are in different reference frames. An experiment that shows the validity of Einstein's relativity is one where we've found that the time on Earth and on the satellite evertually becomes noticablely different.I haven't read the rest of the article, but as you can see, there is plenty wrong with LR theory. This is why Einstein's theory is so well accepted today.
waterbreathOct 6, 2006
If I had to put it succinctly, the basic mathematical and scientific facts presented in this article are truth. But they are not the whole truth. And the omissions are used to allow alternate interpretations of the given facts for the purpose of resurrecting an old idea that, nonetheless, has not yet provded the same complete explanation for astonomical phenomena as GR has.The author ignores the fact that it has been known for decades that SR is not valid in accelerated or gravitational frames. Which is why Einstein fromulated GR. The author explains very well why SR is not valid in accelerated or gravitational frames. And he puts forth a good argument that the _math_ of LR could be substituted for the _math_ of SR in places where acceleration or gravity are significant, but not dominant. And what you'd end up with is just as consistent, but mathematically simpler.The problem is that all this information is framed in a way that seems to attempt to "unseat" SR in some way, in order to bring back the idea of an "aether". The truth is that SR was never intended to be used in the places that LR is being used, and the "aether" of LR serves the exact same purpose and behaves identically to the GR "spacetime".In fact, this is a point that today's physicists tiptoe carefully around. Not because it's a point of inaccuracy, but because there is a real danger that by drawing parallels between GR's "spacetime" and the traditional "luminiferous aether", that people will become confused. Because the simple matter is that they are not completely identical. This is because the traditional "aether" was largely immune to the actions and influences of matter. It was simply a transmission medium. Whereas GR's "spacetime" is "coupled" to the behavior of matter. It is affected by matter, and as a result, there is a sort of feedback loop, whereby matter self-interferes by an indirect path. Matter affects the "gravity field", and the "gravity field" affects matter. And this last point is completely unaddressed by the author.
politechOct 6, 2006
Why dig this?I keep my eyes and ears open to postulations which can help science come to terms with the actual evidence so far collected. Witness "Dark Matter". Is that Drivel? (or Dribble?)What is the difference between the "Dark Matter" idea and the idea of "Aether"? Some brilliant minds in history firmly believed that Aether exists. (Nicola Tesla to name one).Something which I consistently say on digg as elsewhere is that one should maintain a healthy skepticism when it comes to "consensus science". Open-minded skepticism. A contradiction in terms? Or good science?
stonecypherOct 6, 2006
Llan: to suggest that there are flaws and then, when asked to elucidate one, to refer to a book, actually makes you look like you're trying to sound like an authority when you're unable to legitimately comment. I would wholeheartedly suggest that you take the time to specifically enlighten us on one particular flaw, rather than to say "go read this book" or "the author obviously doesn't understand;" whereas I have no idea whether you actually know what you're talking about, the mode of discussion you employ, alongside your reference to your university as a vague "top 20 school," gives you the appearance of a charlatan.Perhaps you would be so kind as to properly defend your accusations, rather than to refer to some book that you know perfectly well nobody's going to read on grounds of your having said so?Thank you for discussing like an adult after this point.
malorkusOct 6, 2006
This paper is pseudoscience. Want "proof"? Fine, he says in one paragraph that LR allows the speed of light in vacuum to vary, and this is a key difference from SR. Then he says no experiments ever distinguished SR and LR. Then he mentions the Michaelson-Morley experiment, which real physicists know precisely DID show there is no ether and that speed of light IS constant independent of reference frame.Or, you could realize that a theory that predates Einstein and is closer to classical physics would never be dismissed by the physics community in favor of a more radical theory unless they had a good reason. Physicists don't just adopt theories for the hell of it you know.Also, gravity does propagate at light speed; Google "gravity waves" for more info. The author is a quack.
angryredplanetOct 7, 2006
leptonI guess a good example to back what you say is the non-observable nature of black holes. The only way we "see" them is by their interaction with other things that are observable. I'm thinking that if light propagated faster than gravity, we would be able to see masses getting sucked into black holes and they would be called something else?
llanOct 7, 2006
What is so hard to comprehend in "This whole paper, every single word, is idiocy"? Shall I spell it out? I - D - I - O - C - YThere! Better?And I will of course NOT explain special relativity in a comment box...how do expect me to do that?
waynegoodeOct 9, 2006
The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, repeated many times since then, disproved the concept of the Ether, (Ethernet not withstanding.) A few sentences of hand-waving and technical jargon cannot change that. No Ether means no Lorentz Contraction leaving Relatively as the only explanation.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment</a>