• Is LET "experimentally confirmed"?

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 24 03:17:17 2023
    Well, poor fanatic halfbrains?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Aug 24 09:23:02 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 5:17:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Well, poor fanatic halfbrains?

    Certain aspects of LET make absolutely no sense.

    For example, we know that gravitational waves travel at exactly (or almost exactly) the same speed as light waves. There is absolutely no good reason for this coincidence.

    The concept of the luminiferous aether was developed to explain light waves. It is practically impossible to imagine that gravitational waves should share the same medium of propagation as light. Or even if it did, it is impossible to imagine that the
    speed of gravitational waves should be c. After all, in solid matter, compression waves travel at a different speed than transverse waves. Water ripples travel at a different speed than acoustic waves, etc.

    However, GR explains the coincidence of speeds in a perfectly natural fashion.

    I believe that LET has been experimentally invalidated, since LET would predict that gravitational waves travel at their own characteristic speed, which should not be c.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Aug 24 10:57:28 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:17:20 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Well, poor fanatic halfbrains?
    What does "LET" stand for?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adolf =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6bel?=@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 21:10:12 2023
    On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:17:20 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Well, poor fanatic halfbrains?
    What does "LET" stand for?


    Lorentz Ether Theory

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu Aug 24 13:21:59 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 18:30:43 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 5:17:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Well, poor fanatic halfbrains?

    Certain aspects of LET make absolutely no sense.

    Well, so do "certain aspects" of your SR shit.
    But is LET "confirmed" or not?




    For example, we know

    That Poincare was mistaken. Nope, it's you who is mistaken.
    And your relativity is just some strange (and stupid)
    convention of talking. Nothing more.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu Aug 24 21:45:38 2023
    Within its common domain with SR, Lorentz Ether Theory is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, so within that domain it is solidly confirmed experimentally.

    But LET's domain only includes classical electrodynamics, and outside
    that it is completely inapplicable. Moreover, LET does not generalize to
    GR as SR does, nor does it generalize to Quantum Field theory as SR
    does. So LET is a theoretical dead end, while SR has proven to be the
    basis of all current fundamental theories of physics.

    [The fundamental difference is SYMMETRY. SR has (local)
    Lorentz invariance as a fundamental trait, while LET has it
    only as happenstance, and only for observable quantities.]

    Intellectually, LET has the problem that its ether is completely
    unobservable -- it is an "unmoved mover" that is inconsistent with all
    other known physics.

    [In applying LET, since its ether is unobservable, one can
    designate ANY inertial frame as "the ether rest frame" and
    then obtain predictions identical to those of SR.]

    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:
    I believe that LET has been experimentally invalidated, since LET
    would predict that gravitational waves travel at their own
    characteristic speed, which should not be c.

    No. LET makes no prediction about gravitation, much less about
    gravitational waves. But LET remains singularly useless.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 22:10:14 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 04:45:49 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Within its common domain with SR, Lorentz Ether Theory is experimentally indistinguishable from SR,

    Almost. Well, assuming Lorentz we will correct
    clocks of GPS to 9 192 631 774, assuming The Shit
    we shouldn't.
    And we do. Goodbye, The Shit.

    so within that domain it is solidly confirmed
    experimentally.

    Thus: an ether theory is "confirmed experimentally".
    Nice, isn't it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Aug 25 21:45:46 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    Within its common domain with SR, Lorentz Ether Theory is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, so within that domain it is solidly confirmed experimentally.

    But LET's domain only includes classical electrodynamics, and outside
    that it is completely inapplicable. Moreover, LET does not generalize to
    GR as SR does, nor does it generalize to Quantum Field theory as SR
    does. So LET is a theoretical dead end, while SR has proven to be the
    basis of all current fundamental theories of physics.

    [The fundamental difference is SYMMETRY. SR has (local)
    Lorentz invariance as a fundamental trait, while LET has it
    only as happenstance, and only for observable quantities.]

    Yes. Same point again: Einstein made the Lorentz transform
    (and the existence of a universal velocity)
    part of of space-time. (hence kinematics, not dynamics)
    Therefore, with Einstein, it is inevitable
    that all physical theory must be Lorentz invariant.

    Lorentz otoh must postulate this over and over again,
    for each new attempt at more physical theory.
    Poincare idem. So the Poincare stresses that may hold the Lorentz
    electron together must be postulated to be Lorentz invariant too.

    Einstein's point of view has triumphed completely, in modern physics.
    Lorentz invariance of all physical theory is nowadays assumed
    as a matter of course.
    (arcane attemps at new quantum gravity excepted, perhaps)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Aug 25 22:22:42 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 21:45:49 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Einstein's point of view has triumphed completely, in modern physics.

    And too bad for your "modern physics".
    In the real world (GPS) it's Lorentz who is winning, sorry, trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)