Is Lorentz Ether Theory a Viable Alternative to General Relativity?

[Dmitry67]

More importantly, a generalized LET - an alternative theory of space and gravity, essentially - may be a good approach to resolving the known anomalies with GR, such as faster than predicted universal expansion, different galactic rotation velocities than predicted by GR (with dark energy and dark matter postulated in GR to resolved these two anomalies), Pioneer spacecraft anomalies and borehole anomalies, to name just a few.

To make our discussion more productive, I have a hypotesis of what Tam is trying to say.

1. There are no experiments to distinguish LET and SR
2. If we add gravity, SR becomes GR and LET becomes GLET
3. GR and GLET can be distinguished experimentally (see above)
4. As LET is a 'no-gravity' limit of GLET, Tam insists that SR<>LET

Tam, could you confirm that my guess is right?
If so, we should avoid any discussion of LET vs SR and focus exclusively on GR vs GLET. We shoudl begin from understanding what GLET is :)

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, we have indeed been over this many times - so please read back over my previous responses. I don't have the appetite to repeat myself ad nauseam and you seem to have a mental block on understanding what I've written over and over again.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, I've been pretty clear that my concern is with an alternative to GR and that a generalized LET is perhaps the best alternative approach.

 

[Dale]

you seem to have a mental block on understanding what I've written

And you seem to have a mental block on understanding the scientific method.

You have still failed to justify your assertion re: experimental evidence for LET over SR, which is scientifically impossible. Instead you pretend to concede the point and then immediately go back to re-asserting it. Frankly, I find such disingenuous discussion techniques completely unacceptable.

I re-issue my challenge. Propose a quantitative experimental measure by which SR or LET could be empirically distinguished or concede that it is impossible.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I can't be any more clear than I have been in this thread. Please read again what I've written - do you recall the phrase "taking pedantics to a silly extreme"?

And don't forget the key middle term in the phrase "Lorentz ether theory."

 

[Dmitry67]

Tam, you are not clear because you are desperately trying to avoid saying YES or NO. I asked you if my understanding of your position was right, but after reading your answer now I don't understand if you agreed or not.

I mentioned ther 4 items, could you fill the table, like 1 - yes, 2-no, etc. The question #1asked here many times: can you distinguish LET from SR experimentally?

Tam, there is answer YES or NO. No "you know, your reading is too narrow, blah blah blah". It is just simple YES or NO. Please answer.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, frankly I'm tired of repeating myself, but because I would really like you and others on this thread to get this point, here it is one LAST time:

SR and LET have the same predictions re length contraction and time dilation

SR postulates the contancy of the speed of light and a consequent malleability of time and space as the of these phenomena.

LET postulates electromagnetic interaction with the ether as the cause.

Evidence supporting the existince of an ether, and elecromagnetic interaction with the ether, strongly supports LET over SR.

QED.

Some choose to interpret LET and SR as ONLY containing the Lorentz transformations. This is a ridiculously narrow interpretation and if this was accurate we could simply state the simple Lorentz transformation equations and be done with it. We wouldn't need reams of books and papers trying to explain the basis for these transformations and the various interpretations of the formalisms.

The question then becomes, which is how this interminable thread began: what are the best approaches to generalizing LET and is there good evidence for detection of the ether through the inconstancy of the speed of light for moving observers?

Dale, this also addresses your challenge AGAIN.

 

[Dmitry67]

Ok, Tam, I see, we all were thinking that you change you position in every post: but we were wrong. Thank you for putting everything in one post, because now I see the root of the problem.

Your position is not self-consistent.

1 SR and LET have the same predictions re length contraction and time dilation
2 Evidence supporting the existince of an ether, and elecromagnetic interaction with the ether, strongly supports LET over SR.

How can 1 can be consistent with 2?
In 1 you state that SR and LET have the same predictions.
In 2 you say that evidence supports LET

Could you clarify your position?

 

[Dmitry67]

3. The question then becomes, ... and is there good evidence for detection of the ether through the inconstancy of the speed of light for moving observers?

And in 3 you are not sure that ehter can be detected?
In 1 you claim that it is undetectable
In 2 you say there is an evidence
In 3 you ask if we can detect it??

I am lost...

 

[Dale]

Evidence supporting the existince of an ether, and elecromagnetic interaction with the ether, strongly supports LET over SR.

No, such evidence would falsify LET as well as SR.

Some choose to interpret LET and SR as ONLY containing the Lorentz transformations. This is a ridiculously narrow interpretation and if this was accurate we could simply state the simple Lorentz transformation equations and be done with it. We wouldn't need reams of books and papers trying to explain the basis for these transformations and the various interpretations of the formalisms.

I do not say that SR and LET only contain the Lorentz transformations. However, the basic part of the scientific method that you apparently fail to understand (and the reason for my challenge) is that theories are not directly testable. What are testable are quantitative hypotheses about specific experimental measurements. For this purpose both SR and LET use only the Lorentz transforms and therefore they both make the exact same predictions for all measurements. Therefore, despite their important differences, they are empirically indistinguishable.

You have still failed to even attempt to propose any experimental measurement where SR and LET predict different quantitative results.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, to be blunt: I don't see any productive reason to continue this dialogue. I have stated over and over again that LET and SR are far more than just the Lorentz transformations. If you disagree with that, as you apparently do, let's simply agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, 1 and 2 are consistent b/c of what I have stated many times: LET and SR are about more than just length contraction and time dilation. As with Dale, if you don't agree with this, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation decision.