Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes

From: ueb (Ulrich.Bruchholz_at_t-online.de)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:04:39 +0000

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

> "ueb" schrieb
>> >> > Gravity is a field with 10 components. According to my
> generalization
>> > >> of LET to gravity these 10 components are:
>> >>
>> >> > 1. Ether density rho (1 component)
>> >> > 2. Ether velocity v^i (3 components)
>> >> > 3. Ether stress tensor (symmetric 3x3 tensor, 6 components)
>> >>
>> >> Anything that has a density, a velocity, and a "stress" must be
>> >> a medium. Is there any evidence for the existence of such medium ?
>>
>> > Yep. The fact that the fields we observe fit in such a nice and simple
>> > way into the scheme of fields which are appropriate for condensed
>> > matter theory.
>>
>> Nice. Do I rightly understand you stating that your theory is proved
>> by another theory ?

> No. Physical theories cannot be proven. Instead, they should be
> falsifiable. If such a falsifiable theory is falsified, we know it is wrong
> and has to be modified. If we have several unfalsified theories, we
> have to use other criteria to chose between them.

Ok. I know that you like Popper, and can well agree. ;-)
My question actually means if it may be a strong criterion as well
a theory fits into a scheme for another theory.

> Important criteria are predictive power (the ability to make nontrivial
> predictions) and explanatory power (the ability to explain observations
> or phenomenological theories).

> Now, the situation with my general Lorentz ether theory is the following:

> In essential parts, it makes predictions similar to GR. In some other
> parts,
> the predictions are different. But there is a large part there the
> predictions
> agree. In this part, any experiment which supports GR predictions
> supports in the same way the predictions of my ether theory.

> This is a quite common situation in science, and therefore it is important
> not to claim that any of these experiments which support GR "prove" GR.

> Then there are other predictions made by my theory not made by GR.
> For example, my theory predicts a globally flat universe and inflation.

Can one ever disprove such predictions ?

> Inflation falsifies some versions of GR, but it is possible to invent
> strange
> kinds of matter such that GR with this strange kind of matter predicts
> inflation too.

Not necessary. It was the great error by the old theorists that they
invented any matter at all. (Possibly, they needed it. Then it is the
huge error by the new theorists to keep it in the light of GR.)
I find your theory nice, because it is only consequent to invent
a medium between all that matter. However, you should take notice
of the fact that one does not _need_ any medium or matter. For that
reason, I disagree with those, who insist on the matter, and condemn
other media at the same time.

>> - I must admit that I have still to learn this new kind of evidence. :-)

> Indeed :-). The situation with explanatory power is even more subtle.

Hmm. Actually, it is not the explanatory power, where I see a need.
May be, I should call your's attention to
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4v9cc.s5.ln%40Muse2.private.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrncfhqp3.26e.dubious%40radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fsicdc.t5.ln%40Muse2.private.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=leqedc.t5.ln%40Muse2.private.de
 
Ulrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail. ... It is actually a good example for defining the difference between science and technology. ... you can make certain predictions about what ANY ... Neither does it explain why the speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail. ... nature of this difference. ... that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again. ... are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Arrow of Time"
    ... The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. ... Time only exists because you need a way to track your memories, and build your predictions. ... You never defined the term *exists* Secondly, in the context of this debate, the existence of factual evidence is that which is under debate, and therefore, has not been established except that you've asserted it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail. ... nature of this difference. ... that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again. ... predictions which can be tested follow. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
    ... >> matter. ... Dark matter was not introduced until the discovery of the ... distributions that correspond to the shortfall in GR's predictions, ... /secret/ ongoing WMD programme, and from that point onwards, the way ...
    (sci.physics)