Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Pentcho Valev on 1 Sep 2007 02:23 On 1 Sept, 01:20, "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > Besides, the logical extension of your complaint would be to name > the latest variant > "Lorentz-Einstein-Tangherlini-Beckmann-Hatch-Selleri-Phipps-Van Flandern > relativity of motion", which credits everyone along the way who contributed > to the evolution of our present-day school of thought about this. This must be some very nice relativity of motion produced by the even nicer school of thought of yours. Has your school of thought ever thought on the truth/falsehood of Einstein's light postulate: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." What does your school of thought think? Einstein's light postulate is true? False? Partially false? Just a little false? Who cares? Pentcho Valev
From: Tom Roberts on 1 Sep 2007 11:55 Tom Van Flandern wrote: > Tom Roberts writes: >>> [tvf]: Lorentzian relativity (LR) is the modern updating of the >>> Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) [...] Specifically, with "elysium" defined >>> as [...] >> This quite clearly is completely unrelated to anything Lorentz wrote. >> You should not associate his name with it. > [... no actual justification for using Lorentz's name -- several additional physical assumptions are added to what he wrote] >> [Roberts]: In short, you claim that the "geometric interpretation" of >> GR is "refuted" by 6 experiments, in favor of a "field interpretation" >> in which gravitational force propagates much faster than c in a >> Euclidean space. > > First, I did not invent that terminology, much less the physical > concepts behind them. You seem to have been taught only the geometric > interpretation; and to you, THAT is GR. Not true. To me the EQUATIONS OF GR are the theory known as GR. This is what we mean by "theory" in physics today. <shrug> > However, the field > interpretation came first, and both interpretations use the same math > and make the same classical predictions. They differ mainly over the way > the speed-of-gravity issue id dealt with. Not true. The theory consisting of fields ON A FLAT EUCLIDEAN 3-SPACE is not GR. That is, it cannot possibly include all the solutions of the actual equations of GR. It is, as I said, merely an APPROXIMATION to GR. > Vigier and I argued in "Foundations of Physics" that the geometric > interpretation is falsified by: > ** (1) the absence of a cause to initiate 3-space motion for a body at > rest in a gravitational potential field; > ** (2) the absence of a physical source for the new 3-space momentum > continually acquired by an orbiting body; and > ** (3) its failure to pass any observational tests except those done to > test the field interpretation using astronomical data collected in > Euclidean space. All your argument amounts to is: a) you do not like the geometric interpretation b) you prefer to cling to a NAIVE view of causality c) you insist on reifying a specific set of coordinates And you lie in (3) -- GR passes all experimental tests within its domain (though there are puzzles unrelated to this discussion). I repeat: one tests THEORIES, not interpretations. > This "failure" involves the 6 experiments you mention showing that the > speed of gravity is strongly FTL. Not true. Those experiments show that the "gravitational force" "propagates" strongly FTL ("gravity" is too wishy-washy for good use). GR predicts the same, and IS NOT FALSIFIED. I repeat: one tests theories, not interpretations; that is, the EQUATIONS OF GR are not falsified here. > The geometric interpretation cannot > explain them except by inventing a "deus ex machine" such as Carlip's > "velocity-dependent cancelling force" to make aberration magically > disappear; There is no "inventing" -- this is merely applying THE EQUATIONS OF GR to the experimental situation, making appropriate approximations to solve the equations. This is how theories are tested. There's no "magic" here, just applied physics -- the EQUATIONS make aberration "disappear". <shrug> YOU are the one insisting on a specific phrasing ("gravitational force is propagated strongly FTL"), which is not a natural way of describing those equations. Don't blame Carlip for YOUR inappropriate terminology. >> [Roberts]: What you describe IS NOT GR. It is merely an APPROXIMATION >> TO GR. A Euclidean manifold cannot possibly model all of the manifolds >> of GR, it can only model a SUBSET of them (a rather small subset, for >> they must be topologically consistent with a flat 3-metric). Locally, >> of course, that approximation is exceedingly good (which explains why >> you can think this); it is still unknown whether or not it applies to >> the universe as a whole. > > Am I to understand that your position is that I should not have > called LR by Lorentz's name, and should not have called the field > interpretation of GR as "GR", simply because you never learned the field > interpretation? Is your entire argument simply one of nomenclature? No. Re-read the quote from me above. Your "field interpretation on a flat Euclidean 3-space" cannot possibly be the same as GR, for the reasons I gave. That is, THE EQUATIONS OF GR can encompass manifolds with topologies and curvatures completely incompatible with a flat 3-space. <shrug> >> [Roberts]: What you claim is also not what science is -- one tests >> THEORIES, not interpretations. Interpretations of a theory are merely >> words describing what the quantities in the equations "mean"; they >> cannot possibly be tested by any experiment. GR is a theory, and it >> agrees with those experiments -- that is ALL one can say in this regard. > > So the claim that GR has no forces, to take one of many examples, is > "merely words ... that cannot be tested"? I repeat: you clearly do not understand what science is, and this seems to be the base of your confusions about "interpretations" and "words". The proper way to test a theory of physics is to apply the EQUATIONS OF THE THEORY to a given experimental situation, to use those equations to predict the experimental outcome, and to compare with the actual results (including errorbars). This is inherently mathematical, and is essentially DEVOID OF WORDS (so the words and interpretations you discuss simply cannot be tested; only the EQUATIONS OF THE THEORY can be tested experimentally). That is not at all what you are doing. <shrug> > Then you won't mind calling > gravity a classical force ("the time rate of change of 3-space > momentum") and discussing the propagation speed of that force, will you? One can do that, in the theory you have apparently cobbled together out of Lorentz's writings and a bunch of other stuff. And one can do that in an APPROXIMATION to GR. > There's no need to use anything but classical physics to describe > gravity if it's all "just words". Look up 3 paragraphs or so -- testing theories in physics is essentially DEVOID OF WORDS. >> [Roberts]: It seems to me that you are trying to claim the mantle of >> GR, and use it to deflect criticism, while simultaneously claiming >> phenomena that are in direct conflict with GR. If "gravitational >> force" does indeed "propagate much faster than c", it must do so >> without transferring any energy, momentum, or information [#], and >> that simply does not make sense. > > The experiments I cited demonstrate that gravitational force > propagates strongly FTL *in forward time*, which means that it transfers > energy (in the form of heat), momentum (which is what produces orbital > motion), and information (can be used for sending FTL messages and for > travel at "warp speed"). In doing so you are not using the EQUATIONS OF GR. You are using either the theory you cobbled together, or an APPROXIMATION to GR. Please remember that GR agrees with those experiments without having any energy, momentum, or information "propagating strongly FTL in forward time". Your claims that these experiments "demonstrate" that are THEORY DEPENDENT, and apply to your theory but not to GR. This is another indication that the theory you are using IS NOT GR. <shrug> > But your point here again is just a nomenclature one. No. My point is: YOU ARE NOT USING GR. And also: you do not understand how to do physics properly. Tom Roberts
From: Juan R. on 1 Sep 2007 14:17 On Sep 1, 5:55 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Tom Van Flandern wrote: > > However, the field > > interpretation came first, and both interpretations use the same math > > and make the same classical predictions. They differ mainly over the way > > the speed-of-gravity issue id dealt with. > > Not true. The theory consisting of fields ON A FLAT EUCLIDEAN 3-SPACE is > not GR. That is, it cannot possibly include all the solutions of the > actual equations of GR. It is, as I said, merely an APPROXIMATION to GR. The two approaches to gravity (fields versus geometry) are almost reproduced in quantum gravity research. The field approach is prefered by particle and string theorists whereas the geometric approach is prefered by loop theoreticians. Particle theorists think that GR is an approximation arises in the field approach over a flat background. Relativists think that the field approach is an approximation to geometric GR (e.g. read Smolin views about string theory). > All your argument amounts to is: > a) you do not like the geometric interpretation I did not know a single paper against the geometric interpretation beggining with "I do not like...". If you want to be serious, you would ask: is the geometric interpretation of gravity working? > b) you prefer to cling to a NAIVE view of causality The concept of causality contained in field formulations is everything except naive. Reason which several string theorists call crackpots to relativists. > c) you insist on reifying a specific set of coordinates > > And you lie in (3) -- GR passes all experimental tests within its domain Do not true. > GR predicts the same, and IS NOT FALSIFIED. I repeat: one tests > theories, not interpretations; that is, the EQUATIONS OF GR are not > falsified here. Do not true. > > The geometric interpretation cannot > > explain them except by inventing a "deus ex machine" such as Carlip's > > "velocity-dependent cancelling force" to make aberration magically > > disappear; > > There is no "inventing" -- this is merely applying THE EQUATIONS OF GR > to the experimental situation, making appropriate approximations to > solve the equations. In a sense one could say that Carlip invents the solution for aberration when computing from the LW potentials. Not in the sense of obtaining the solution from zero but because the solutions does *not* follow from the premises. As stated before Carlip paper is already incorrect in the EM section. > Tom Roberts ========================================================== Note for readers] Because some past episodes of flamming in sci.physics.relativity, both comments in my blog and my newsgroup e-mail are disabled. Note for 'experts' and 'professionals'] Avoid to reply this message if you are in my blacklist below. The capacity of any human for correcting your endless conceptual nonsenses and foolish mathematical mistakes is, unfortunately, just finite. Also my occupations do not include to teach you to read others, not to teach you dimensional analysis or even pre-university physics. Since you will be sanely ignored here in thereafter you are open to misread, misquote, or misinterpret me in any way you want, specially when that adds some light to your grey existence. You are open to write any triviality; to invent any mistake I did not really did. You can cite discredited, outdated, or wrong references. You can manipulate or misread references. You are also open to address any insult you consider supports your points and you can, of course, extend your insults to any poster, institution, colleague, friend, theories, or journal discrediting you. You can also try to falsify ratings, voting against me dozens or several hundred of times simulating different people. You can use the same dishonest tactic for increasing the rating of your akins. {BLACKLIST { Bilge; Bill Hobba; Dono (once Karandash2); Eric Gisse; Tim Shuba; }}
From: Tom Van Flandern on 1 Sep 2007 20:14 > This must be some very nice relativity of motion produced by the even > nicer school of thought of yours. Has your school of thought ever thought > on the truth/falsehood of Einstein's light postulate: ... "...light is > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." What does your > school of thought think? Einstein's light postulate is true? False? > Partially false? Just a little false? Who cares? The independence of the speed of light on the speed of the source was proved by deSitter in 1913. He pointed out that light from both components of a double star, where each component has a unique velocity, nonetheless travels to the observer at the same speed. Otherwise, we would see one component out-of-phase in its orbit. So all viable relativity-of-motion theories have the speed of light independent of the speed of the source. But that is generally true in wave theory, so it comes as no surprise. -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
From: Pentcho Valev on 2 Sep 2007 00:57
On 2 Sept, 03:14, "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote: > > This must be some very nice relativity of motion produced by the even > > nicer school of thought of yours. Has your school of thought ever thought > > on the truth/falsehood of Einstein's light postulate: ... "...light is > > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." What does your > > school of thought think? Einstein's light postulate is true? False? > > Partially false? Just a little false? Who cares? > > The independence of the speed of light on the speed of the source was > proved by deSitter in 1913. He pointed out that light from both components > of a double star, where each component has a unique velocity, nonetheless > travels to the observer at the same speed. Otherwise, we would see one > component out-of-phase in its orbit. So all viable relativity-of-motion > theories have the speed of light independent of the speed of the source. > > But that is generally true in wave theory, so it comes as no > surprise. -|Tom|- > > Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy > research athttp://metaresearch.org So you rely on deSitter but do not rely on, say, Sagnac or Michelson- Morley? And you also believe that a speed of light independent of the speed of the source is consistent with what you said earlier in this thread: Tom Van Flandern: "Lorentzian relativity (LR) is the modern updating of the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) to which you refer. There can be no speed limit because in LR, nothing happens to time. The changes happen only to clocks, much the way a pendulum clock changes rate when temperature changes." I must admit once more that Einsteinians are geniuses compared to you and your brothers aetherists. By the way, deSitter is discussed here: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binaries.htm Pentcho Valev |