Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

No, this is incorrect.  As I have said repeatedly, Lorentz did NOT believe that "light always goes the same speed regardless of the observer."

 

This misconception seems to be founded on the failure to make a distinction that I have addressed in the past, i.e., the failure to distinguish between what a thing "is measured to be" and "what it really is."

 

Einstein made the postulation you mentioned, yes.  But it did NOT agree with Lorentz's view, which was quite different.

 

Lorentz said we merely "measured" the speed to be the same, but that in fact it was NOT the same.

I agree with this totally, so far...

[marcospolo]

Main thing that turns us into quacks is that neither of us accept Einsteins theories.

Differences lie in that I don't accept Lorentz's hypothesis as any sensible solution for the problem. "We don't know" would be preferable if I had no other choice, but I do have other choices as to the reason for the null result.

[Moronium]

 

 

Moronium   ,

So clearly, Lorentz MUST have always (even after Einstein's SR theory was published) believed that light speed measurement MUST add or deduct the observer's own velocity, when moving in the same direction as the light.

 

Because this is the only reason for the LT.

 

 

Yes, exactly, except for your use of the word "measurement" in your first sentence.  Lorentz said you would have to add or deduct to get the real, or "true." speed, but that we would never measure it that way.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Lorentz said we merely "measured" the speed to be the same, but that in fact it was NOT the same.

 

Great.  So someone does painstaking LAB work, over years, gets results, then this guy, Lorentz comes along and claims that the measurements are all wrong and can't be believed, but only in one direction....

If measurement can't be believed, then experimental work of this ilk is pointless.

How is Lorentz going to prove that the measurements are not correct in that one direction, but good in the other, when he cant take any measurements himself?

 

In other words, there is no possible way to prove his theory of LT as the two things we need to take measurements, namely distances and time, both are not invariable units.

Edited February 10, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

 

 

Differences lie in that I don't accept Lorentz's hypothesis as any sensible solution for the problem. "We don't know" would be preferable if I had no other choice.....

 

On their face, your objections are quite understandable and well-founded.  Lorentz's solution appeared to be purely ad hoc and, as such, quite suspect.

 

I would never take his suggestion to be valid at face value.

 

But, since his time, his proposition has repeatedly been demonstrated to be valid, no matter how implausible it might sound.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Moronium,  by the way, I agree with everything you have said previously on other topics, and admire your ability to express yourself in other posts to other members, but the one thing i cant agree with is your belief in LT.  It seems to be the odd man out in an otherwise well presented view of Physics, in my opinion.  So I hope you can come up with a really great justification for LT that is as solid as the rest of your beliefs or understanding.

[Moronium]

In other words, there is no possible way to prove his theory of LT as the two things we need to take measurements, namely distances and time, both are not invariable units.

 

Granted. But, by that same token, there's no possible way to prove that they "are" invariable units.  Einstein also treated them as "variable units" in his 1905 paper, and, to that extent, his theory agree with Lorentz.

[marcospolo]

On their face, your objections are quite understandable and well-founded.  Lorentz's solution appeared to be purely ad hoc and, as such, quite suspect.

 

I would never take his suggestion to be valid at face value.

 

But, since his time, his proposition has repeatedly been demonstrated to be valid, no matter how implausible it might sound.

Ok, this is the second time I asked for the actual examples of where LT has been demonstrated.  I won't accept pseudo-scientific sources, such as Particle Physics.

If the concept sounds implausible, then maybe it is. The examples should exhibit extraordinary evidence, as the claim is extraordinary.  My solutions are not extraordinary so Occam's razor should apply.

[Moronium]

Granted. But, by that same token, there's no possible way to prove that they "are" invariable units.  Einstein also treated them as "variable units" in his 1905 paper, and, to that extent, his theory agree with Lorentz.

 

Just as an analogy, the "boiling temperature of water" is not an "invariable" either.  It changes with changes in altitude (atmospheric pressure).

 

A lot of things change with motion, the appearance of "fictitious forces" when you're accelerating, for example.  Newton's laws, in their simplest form, are not the same in those conditions.  That's why Einstein had to confine his theory to "inertial" frames.

[Moronium]

Ok, this is the second time I asked for the actual examples of where LT has been demonstrated.  

 

I have given this (and other) examples before (many times, actually) but here goes again.

 

Consider the GPS.  It has 24 clocks orbiting the earth at speeds which are higher than those on the earth's surface.  Therefore, if the LT are correct, they should be ticking slower.

 

According to the time dilation due to distance from the center of mass of the earth, those same clocks are also affected (speeded up actually) due to a greater distance from the earth's center.

 

Both forms of time dilation (clock retardation) have been verified.  But, for the purposes of simplicity, let's ignore the gravitational effects for now.....(see next post)

[ralfcis]

Wrong, The earth clocks are slowed by gravity more than the velocity dilates the time of the satellite clocks relative to the earth clocks. Two separate effects (GR and SR) on two different sets of clocks.

Edited February 10, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

Granted. But, by that same token, there's no possible way to prove that they "are" invariable units.  Einstein also treated them as "variable units" in his 1905 paper, and, to that extent, his theory agree with Lorentz.

But there's more to it than the " units" not being invariable. The very notion that physical objects could possibly shrink in only the axis of motion, and then only under peculiar, non accelerating speeds, is certainly one of the most bizarre proposals made in seriousness in all of mans history.

 

If Time and distance are unreliable, as we know not the relative speeds of anything, (as we need time and distance themselves to know the speed) its an endless circular argument that means we may as well give up on Physics.

 

The other option is that Lorentz was a raving idiot, and his transformation is pure rubbish. Then we suddenly have sensible Physics back, and SR and GR can die off, and we can deal to those stupid Quantum quacks.

 

But I want too much.

 

[Moronium]

Now then, clocks on earth are ticking at a different rate.  For every hour that passes, the discrepancy between earth clocks and satellite clocks would get greater, if not adjusted.  After a few days, the GPS would be off by many miles.

 

So how do the clocks get "synchronized?"

 

The GPS engineers recalibrate the clocks intended to go into orbit BEFORE they are ever sent into space, that's how.

 

So, how do they do that?  For purposes of calculating the difference in ticking rate due to speed, they use the LT.

 

Say, for instance, that the space clock will be travelling 10,000 mph faster than they would on earth.  OK, now let's just say that would imply that the satellite clock, if unadjusted, would only tick off 59 seconds for every minute that an earth clock would register.  So they calibrate the clock going into orbit to read that one minute has passed for every 59 seconds that it would otherwise record.

 

After that, the clocks are synchronized once they are in orbit.  And since their actual ticking rate has been adjusted, they STAY synchronized with earth clocks indefinitely, with no need for further adjustment.

 

The workings of the GPS all more complicated than that, of course, but that's the basic idea.

 

The point is that, without relying on the LT to make accurate predictions of time dilation, they could never build a working system/

[ralfcis]

There is absolutely no mathematical need to invoke length contraction to explain any relativistic effect including the constancy of the speed of light.

[Moronium]

But there's more to it than the " units" not being invariable. The very notion that physical objects could possibly shrink in only the axis of motion, and then only under peculiar, non accelerating speeds, is certainly one of the most bizarre proposals made in seriousness in all of mans history.

 

Look at it this way:  If you ran into a brick wall at 100 mph, how many directions would your body be "contracted" in?  In which direction would it be contracted?

 

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

I have given this (and other) examples before (many times, actually) but here goes again.

 

Consider the GPS.  It has 24 clocks orbiting the earth at speeds which are higher than those on the earth's surface.  Therefore, if the LT are correct, they should be ticking slower.

 

According to the time dilation due to distance from the center of mass of the earth, those same clocks are also affected (speeded up actually) due to a greater distance from the earth's center.

 

Both forms of time dilation (clock retardation) have been verified.  But, for the purposes of simplicity, let's ignore the gravitational effects for now.....(see next post)

GPS is a hotly contested subject when it comes to SR.  There's much info that explain that SR and LT are not considered in the GPS system.  Its not clear cut as you imagine.

Anyway, it has been conceded that timekeeping devices seem to be affected by gravity and motion, but that has nothing to do with the concept of time being affected, which of course it cant.

Ive read and collected a number of published papers related to GPS and SR and GR seem to be the least mentioned aspect of the system. Sometimes not mentioned at all. I ve also read explanations as to why SR and GR if applied would introduce errors into the GPS system.  So its not a done deal.  What else you got?

[Moronium]

Same question if you were flying into a headwind on a plane?  Things don't always go "both directions," eh?