Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT

On Apr 15, 10:03 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:19 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 14, 9:18 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 11, 7:12 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 10, 12:45 pm, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A LET observer makes the following assumptions:
1. A LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the rest frame of the
ether.

Not necessarily. There might be a particular observer that is at rest
in the rest frame of the ether, but an arbitrary observer doesn't make
this assumption in LET. I'll assume this is what you meant.

Ah but a LET observer does assume that he is in a preferred frame, the
ether frame.

No, he does not. In this you are simply wrong. Lorentz, who is the
author of LET, does NOT say that the observer makes any assumption of
being in the ether frame. Lorentz himself says an observer may or may
not be in the ether frame. He did make some remarks about what the one
observer that IS at rest wrt the ether will measure, but he certainly
did not say that any observer makes the same assumption.

Sigh....it is irrelevant what Lorentz said.

This is funny, Ken. First you make a comment about what Lorentz's
theory says (which was an incorrect comment), and then you say it's
irrelevant what Lorentz said. Don't you think that's funny? I think
it's hysterical.

What is relevant is that
the resulting math (derived from the assumption of physical length
contraction and clock slowing) is the math of the rest frame of the
ether.

In other words, in your mind, the Lorentz ether theory is what YOU say
it says, not what it really says. What a wonderful policy. "I reject
your reality, and substitute my own."


As I've told you repeatedly, Ken, it would help enormously if you
would actually read what the originators of the theory said about the
theory, rather than just guessing.

I am not guessing.....the math of LET that says that all clocks moving
wrt the observer are running slow and all rods moving wrt the observer

Not any "the" observer, but one "the" observer in particular -- the
one "the" observer that happens to be at rest wrt to the ether.

are physically contracted can only happen if the observer is in a
state of absolute rest in the ether.



That's why he used the ether frame to derive his math

No, he didn't. This is an error of fact. What are you reading about
how he derived his math?

Why don't you answer this question, Ken? You never say what the source
material is from which you've extracted your understanding of LET and
SR. Surely you are *reading* something about these theories, aren't
you? What, exactly, have you read?


and
the result is that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow an dall
rods moving wrt him are contracted.

2. The speed of light in the rest frame of the LET observer is
isotropic c.

In the rest frame of this particular observer, yes.

Yes he uses the ether frame derive his math.

No, he doesn't.

Yes he did...his math says that all clocks moving wrt the observer are
running slow. This is true only if the observer is at rest in the
ether.

Then you haven't read his theory. In the stuff that he ACTUALLY WROTE,
he also does the math for an observer that is *moving* with respect to
the ether. And here you say, having not actually read what he actually
wrote, that he couldn't have written that, because you don't
understand it. Please understand something about FACTS, Ken. Just
because you do not understand a FACT, does not mean that is not a
FACT. It is a FACT that he actually wrote something different than
what you think he wrote, and you say nevertheless that he could not
have meant that. This is where your detachment from reality, Ken, and
your complete inability to back down from a simple error, is going to
keep you from making progress.




3. All clocks moving wrt the LET observer are running slow by a factor
of 1/gamma. This means that the rate of the LET observer's clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe.

According to LET, all clocks moving wrt to the *ether* are running
slow. If this is what you meant, yes. It means that the rate of the
clock that is at rest with respect to the *ether* is the fastest
running clock in the universe.

Right...so the LET observer uses the ether frame as his frame of
reference to do calculations. That is thwe same as assuming that he is
at rest in the ether frame.

Not so. He also does the calculation for one observer moving wrt the
ether, looking at another clock moving at a different speed wrt the
ether.

No he does not....if he did he would have include the possibility that
the observed clock can run at a faster rate than his clock.

No, that is explicitly NOT what he does. He DOES the calculation for
an observer moving relative to the ether. The fact that you don't see
how that works simply means that you do not understand his theory.
Remember, Ken, it is LORENTZ'S theory, not yours. The fact that you
don't understand it does not mean that you get to change his theory.
If you don't understand it, then you have to work harder to understand
what he really said.




According to LET, all sticks moving wrt to the *ether* are contracted.
This means that the physical length of the meter stick at rest wrt to
the *ether* is the longest stick in the universe.

Right the let observer he is at rest in the ether frame and that's why
all the rods moving wrt him are contracted.

5. Absolute time exists.

An SR observers makes the following assumptions:
1. All inertial frames are equivalent....this includes the ether
frame.

Not quite. All inertial frames are equivalent, period. There is no
ether frame.

Sure quite. SR never said that there is no ether frame.

Yes, it does. It doesn't rule out an ether, but it does say there is
nothing physically special about the frame in which the ether is at
rest. It says that explicitly.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. It EXPLICITLY states this. Again this is a problem with
FACTS. If the theory says something in black and white, this does NOT
give you the right to say the theory does not say it, just because you
don't understand it. First thing you do in dealing with reality is to
recognize the FACT that it is printed in black and white. THEN you
work to understand how that fact can be. You do not DENY the fact even
when it is printed in black and white.

What is special about the ether frame is that all
clocks moving wrt the ether frame observer are running slow and all
rod moving wrt the ether frame observer are contracted. All other
observers moving in the ether can't make that claim. BTW this claim is
valid mathematically only if the observed clock is in a higher state
of absolute motion than the observer and that's the reason why LET and
SR are incomplete.
IRT is invented to overcome the incompleteness of SR and LET. IT says
that an observed clock can run fast or slow compared to the observer's
clock.



In fact the
ether frame is the only truly inertial frame exists in the universe.

That is CERTAINLY not what SR says.

It is irrelevant what SR says. What is relevant is that no physical
object is in an inertial frame in a gravity environment.

Again, Ken, this is hysterically funny. First you make a comment about
what SR says, and when this turns out to be not what SR says, then you
say it is irrelevant what SR says! Don't you think it's funny to say
that?




No object in the universe can be considered as an inertial
frame....especially in a gravity environment.

2. The speed of light is isotropic c in all inertial frames.

Yes, and this is experimentally verified.

No the one-way speed of light never been verified experimentally.

That's not what I said. I said is that it has been experimentally
verified that the speed of light is *isotropically* c in all inertial
frames. That HAS been done.

The isotropy (not isotropically c) of the speed of light has been
verified experimentally in the earth frame

No, actually, in more than the Earth frame. It's measured through
interstellar space.
And isotropy, plus an independent measurement of two-way light speed
being c, REQUIRES the isotropy to be isotropically c. There is no way
to get 2-way light speed being c AND isotropic unless it is
isotropically c.

Your unfamiliarity with the experimental results does not change the
FACTS. If you would like to get caught up on what the FACTS are, I can
give you some reading references. Apparently, you have not done
sufficient reading.

and the earth frame is not
an inertial frame. So your claim that the speed of light is
isotropically c in all inertial frames is bogus.



Yes. This is more fundamental than an assumption. It's a definition.

This definition for time is flawed. Why? Because it implies that a
clock second is an interval of universal time.

No, it doesn't. It says explicitly the reverse. I don't know how you
get the idea that if a theory explicitly says A, you think the theory
implies B, where B is the opposite of A.

Yes it does. SR says that:
1. The speed of light is a un9iversal constant

Yes.

and thus the clock
second used to define the speed of light must also be a universal
interval of time.

No. The second varies from observer to observer, and the meter varies
from observer to observer -- neither is universal, but the speed of
light is universal.

This shouldn't surprise you. The circumference of a flat circle is not
universal -- there are big circles and small circles. Likewise, the
diameter of a flat circle is not universal -- there are big circles
and small circles. But pi, which is the ratio of the circumference and
diameter of a flat circle, is universal -- even though the
circumference and the diameter are not. It's something like that.

Note that SR says EXPLICITLY, in black ink on white pages, that the
second is not a universal interval of time. You can open up most books
on SR and you will be able to find that statement in black ink on
white pages. Now, you've just said that SR says the opposite, and that
*SR says* the second is a universal interval of time. Do you see how
funny that is?

2. In the twin paradox scenario the traveling twin clock second is
compared directly with the stay at home clock second to reach the
conclusion that the traveling twin is younger.

Yes.

This conclusion inplies
that a clock second is an interval of universal time.

No, it doesn't. Now YOU might think this is what should be expected,
but what YOU think should be isn't always what is FACT. You tend to
draw improper implications from what the FACTS are. It might help if
you stop jumping to conclusions about what the implications are and
focus instead on understanding what the FACTS are.

You have a bad habit in jumping to conclusions that are not correct.
For example, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you read somewhere that
2 divided by 2 is 1, and 16 divided by 16 is 1, and 8.3 divided by 8.3
is 1, and that you would then conclude that this implies that 0/0 is
1. This is drawing an improper conclusion. Arithmetic will tell you
that 0 divided by 0 is NOT 1, and it will tell you that EXPLICITLY if
you actually READ a book about arithmetic. It doesn't matter at all if
you think this *implies* that 0 divided by 0 is 1. If you jump to a
conclusion and you find that the reading tells you the EXACT OPPOSITE,
then this is a clue to you that you are not getting the implications
correct.




In real life a clock
second does not represent the same interval of universal time in
different frames. In fact in SR the passage of a clock second in a
moving clock corresponds to the passage of more than a clock second in
the observer's clock by a factor of 1/gamma. In other words, the
observed clock runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma.

3b
. At the rest frame of a clock, it is running at its proper rate of 1
sec/sec and this is the propert time of the clock. Proper time is
invariant.

Invariant across what? "Invariant" means "doesn't change, regardless
of a change in X" where X is a particular something else. Proper time
is invariant across change in inertial reference frames. It is not
invariant across different paths through spacetime.

That's right....proper time is universal time.

You didn't answer the question: Invariant across what? What is the X
that proper time is invariant when X changes?

Invariant means that the rate of passage of proper time is the same in
all frames.

All inertial frames, yes.

And this is quite different than "is the same for different paths
through spacetime".




An SR observer defines
his clock second represents a specific interval of universal time
(proper time)....this specific interval of universal time is
invariant. However this specific interval of universal time (proper
time) is represented by different clock time in different ferames
(different paths through spacetime).

No, different paths through spacetime does NOT mean the same thing as
different inertial frames, Ken. Please bone up on the meaning of the
terms first.

I didn't say that it was. But objects in different paths in spacetime
can certainly be interpreted as in different frame of reference.

No sir, they cannot. And this is where again you do not know the
meaning of terms. You are not free to "interpret" terms as you like,
especially if a decent book prints in black and white that the term
means something different.




No. This is where the theory deviates from LET. LET assumes an
absolute time, and so the fact that a clock at rest wrt the ether runs
the fastest of all clocks is a statement that all observers would
agree on. In SR, this is not something all observers would agree on,
and this is connected to the absence of absolute time. You cannot make
an LET conclusion and force it on SR where it does not apply.

So are you saying that every SR observer doesn't say that all the
clocks moving wrt him are running slow???

Yes, SR says that.

When SR says that it assume that the observer is at rest in the ether

But SR doesn't say anything at all about at rest in the ether. SR does
not include an ether at all. There is NO REFERENCE in SR to being at
rest in the ether.

and the reason why it can make this assumption because the PoR says
that all frames are equivalent (including the ether frame).

No sir. That is ADDING something that doesn't belong in SR (the ether)
and sticking it into SR and still calling it SR. When you ADD
something that doesn't belong in a theory, it is no longer that
theory. Adding ether to SR makes it no longer SR. So you are no longer
talking about what SR says.


LET does NOT. LET says that *only* the observer
that is at rest with respect to the ether says that. You made the
additional statement that every LET observer assumes they are at rest
with respect to the ether, but that is an error -- Lorentz did NOT say
that.

LET also says that when its math says that all the clocks moving wrt a
LET observer are running slow.

No, you are only looking at PART of the math of LET, and that's
because you haven't read sufficiently. You must read the REST of the
math of LET, including the math that deals with observers that do NOT
assume they are at rest with the ether.

You are making a 4th grade mistake. It is like you are reading about
what a mammal is, and they cite a cow as being a mammal, and you
thinking that this implies that mammals all have four legs, just
because they said a cow is a mammal. It is an *improper* conclusion
drawn from a coffee-table-book description of what a mammal is. You
must READ more complete material.




5. At the rest frame of a meter stick its physical length is its
proper length. Proper length is invariant.

Invariant with respect to a change in what? The same comment applies
here as applies to clocks.

Proper length is the physical length of the rod at the rest frame of
the rod

Yes.

....the physical length of the rod is invariant.

No.

Yes.....there is no length contraction.

Sorry, you were talking about what SR says, not what YOUR theory says.
You are claiming that *SR* says there is no length contraction. But in
every decent book about SR it DOES say, in black ink on white pages,
that there IS length contraction.

There is light path
contraction or expansion for a moving rod when the light path length
of the observer's rod is assumed to be the physical length of the rod.



SR missed the
boat by not realizing that it is the light path length of a moving rod
that is changing when the SR observer assumes that the light path
length of his rod is the physical length of his rod.

But what you were talking about was what SR claims, not what it got
wrong. SR does NOT say physical length is invariant. You haven't even
said what you think proper length is invariant with respect to.

6. All meter sticks moving wrt the SR observer are predicted to be
contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.

Yes.

This contraction is a geometric
projection effect. However, SR also claims that contraction is
physically real as in the case of a physically longer pole can fit
into a physically shorter barn.

Yes.

Here you are trying to have your cke and eat it too. Geometric
projection contraction is not physical

Sure it is. Physical length is what's measured.

But the length of a moving rod never been measured.

Sure it has. I've told you this repeatedly. It hasn't been measured in
the way that you want to measure it, but that doesn't mean anything.
I'm sure the isotropy of the speed of light was measured not in the
way you would want to measure it, but it HAS been measured, by a
variety of methods.




and therfore you can rotate a
longer rod through a door way.

It is *like* that. It is not the *same* as that.

However, fitting a longer rod into a
shorter barn is physical.

Yes, it is.

This requires physical contraction.

No, it doesn't. No physical process is required to shorten the rod.
The rod is nevertheless physically shorter.

This is stupid..... You are talking with forked tongue. Here's what
you said:
1. You claimed that fitting a longer rod into a shorter barn is a
physical process.
2. You also claim that no physical process is required to shorten the
rod.

Exactly. Now, I know perfectly well that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND how
this is possible. But here's the point, Ken: Just because you don't
understand something does not mean it doesn't happen anyway. You
cannot deny reality just because you don't understand that reality.
You CANNOT say that reality must conform to what you understand. That
is being unscientific.




Yes.

The IRT definition of simultaneity is much better.

Doesn't matter.

It avoids the
violation of the isotropy of the speed of light in the train frame.

The relativity of simultaneity doesn't violate the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train frame. It *comes from* the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train frame.

No it doesn't come from the isotropy of the speed of ight in the train
frame.

Yes it does.

Einstein derived RoS from the point of view of the track frame.

You have not read sufficiently. There are lots and lots of books that
show how this is derived from the isotropy of the speed of light in
the TRAIN frame. You have not read enough about SR.

This is bogus. The train observer must make his own conclusion whether
the strikes are simultaneous. At the time of the strikes ocuur
simutlaeously the train observer is at equal distance from the strike
and therefore he must also see the strikes to be simultaneous in order
to preserve the isotropy of the speed of light in his frame.

Ken seto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Post 2. Facts and Rules for SR Transforms!
    ... > A change in frame is an act by man, ... a change in frame indicates that the observer is moving at a ... > the same clock time. ... > tree that was present, and this real living tree was ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... A LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the rest frame of the ... in the rest frame of the ether, but an arbitrary observer doesn't make ... This means that the rate of the LET observer's clock is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... A LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the rest frame of the ... in the rest frame of the ether, but an arbitrary observer doesn't make ... clock B and clock C are running slow ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... > seen in A' and B's frame of reference.Since this would specify the ... > and B as well,it therefore it must also be the time when the light pulse ... > observer B ... >> M' bounces a signal off the clock at A' and times its return. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... absolute motion of the observer is higher than that of the observed frame. ... > transformations was in a state of rest relative to the ether, ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading