Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!


"Ilja" <ilja.schmelzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5b699032-e840-4acc-88ae-277e4a237cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 24 Aug., 06:10, "K_h" <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

On 24 Aug., 06:10, "K_h" <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
What testable predictions does LET make that
relativity
does
not?

That was not the question. If LET makes the same
predictions
as SR, it has the same value as a scientific theory as
SR.
Or above are scientific theories, or above are not
scientific theories.

No. Relativity is a scientific theory because all of its
hypotheses are testable.

You make up your own scientific methodology. I recommend
you to read Popper.

I have not made up my own scientific methodology; my remarks
are simply what are generally understood as science.

By the way, the Minkowski spacetime interpretation
contains the hypothesis that future events have
the same status of existence as current or past ones.
This is certainly untestable too.

No, the geometry of spacetime can be tested by making
measurements of it using clocks and rulers.

LET proposes an untestable space
filling medium and so it is not a scientific hypothesis.

You may argue that the difference between SR and LET
is purely metaphysical. That's all. SR postulates
the existence of a four-dimensional manifold, LET
needs only a three-dimensional one, changing in time.

The differences between relativity and all ether theories is
that relativity is a scientific theory while all the ether
theories are not. In order for any ether theory to be
scientific, all of its hypotheses must be testable. In
particular, there must be a way to test for the existence of
the so-called ether.

LET also proposes that there is hidden 3-space whose
existence is not testable. If there is no experiment that
can be done to test for the existence of a space filling
medium, and the space itself, then any theory that
proposes
such things is unscientific.

But you can propose an experiment which actually proves
that
there exists a four-dimensional manifold?

Spacetime obviously exists since we experience it.
Scientists use clocks and rulers to measure the shape of the
four-dimensional manifold.

And, again, it does not make a theory unscientific that
some particular hypothesis cannot be tested.

No, any theory that has one or more untestable hypotheses is
unscientific. Look consider these two theories:

<Theory 1>
Proposition (a): the universe obeys QED and QCD.

<Theory 2>
Proposition (a): God designed the universe so that
Proposition (b): the universe obeys QED and QCD.

Both theories make the same predictions; they are
experimentally indistinguishable. But the first proposition
of theory 2 is unscientific because it is untestable. Just
because two different theories are experimentally
indistinguishable does not mean they are both scientific.
There are many places where you can learn about what science
is. For example, in Richard Feynman's "The Feynman
Lectures" page 1 volume 1: "The principle of science, the
definition, almost, is the following: the test of all
knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
scientific truth". By definition, a scientific theory
cannot assume the existence of things that are untestable.

Wikipedia is certainly not an authority. According to
standard scientific methodology, not every claim of
a scientific theory must be testable. Instead, the
theory
as a whole has to be able to make predictions.

No. Standard scientific requires that every hypothesis of
a
scientific theory be testable.

That's not standard, but your private nonsense
methodology.

No, that is the mainstream definitions and understanding of
what science is.

The below quotes are from
the book "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi, fifth
edition, Chapter 13: Science and Hypothesis. Chapter 13
discusses the differences between scientific and
unscientific hypotheses and the basis of accepting one
hypothesis over another. Copi does a really good job
explaining the mainstream definitions used in science.

I recommend you to read something about holism.

Why?

Bottom of page 464: "Since every scientific explanation
is
regarded as a hypothesis, it is regarded as worthy of
acceptance only to the extent that there is evidence FOR
it."

There is no evidence of a hidden
Euclidean space in the observations.
Therefore, there is no basis for it
to be worthy of acceptance.

There is no evidence of an ether.
Therefore, there is no basis for it
to be worthy of acceptance.

You see no such evidence, but this is your personal
problem.

The scientific community does not see any evidence for it
either and so it is not a problem (personal or otherwise).

Top of page 465: "Consequently, it is of the essence of a
scientific proposition that it be capable of being tested
by
observation."

The existence of an untestable
Euclidean space is not capable of
being tested by observations.
Therefore it is not a scientific
proposition.

The existence of an untestable
ether is not capable of being
tested by observations.
Therefore it is not a scientific
proposition.

Middle of page 466: "It is the essence of a scientific
proposition to be empirically verifiable."

This makes quite clear that the book is positivistic
nonsense.

The book is not nonsense. Please, go to you local library
and read about scientific hypotheses from any mainstream
book you like.

I will refer to this as THE
CARDINAL LAW.

And I will refer to this as THE CARDINAL POSITIVISTIC
NONSENSE.

Well, insults do not matter, what I called the cardinal law
is, by definition, science.

Denying THE
CARDINAL LAW is unscientific
because it is denying the
reliability and applicability
of empiricism.

Read the logic of scientific discovery and come back.

Scientific discovery is based on what is experimentally
testable.

0205035 just tacks on a non-covariant term to
general relativity's lagrangian and blindly equates
metric
terms to fluid terms.

It doesn't simply "tack on" some term, but the general
form
follows from the axioms.

No, it does. It just tacks on your term, L_GLET, to the E-H
action.

Thus, any claim that the principle of
equivalence is derived from this theory is totally
circular.

You ignore the derivation, claim there is none, and then
introduce some "circularity"? Learn how to argue.

If you take the E-H action, tack on another term, and claim
that the resulting `theory' derives Einstein's equivalence
principle then you are mistaken. Basically, that is what
you did. And, by the way, tacking on another term like that
actually yields field equations that violate Einstein's
equivalence principle because only the field equations of
General Relativity satisfy the strong equivalence principle.
Don't claim your `theory' derives the weak equivalence
principle either: since you just grabbed general relativity's
action, you have no grounds to claim that your theory
predicts any consequences specific to general relativity.

First, I do not have to derive QCD from LET, because
one
cannot
derive QCD from SR as well. What one has to derive in a
generalization
of LET is only the equivalence principle. I have
derived
it.

The `derivation' is circular.

It isn't.

Yes it is for the reasons I just got through describing.

By the way, your challenge is nice for me, because I
have
already
derived QCD (except for the mass terms).
Not from LET, but from a simple ether model. See
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm. Published in Foundations of
Physics.
You have found there something about the EEP? That's
what I have in mind. For the derivation of QCD and
electroweak theory, you have to look at arXiv:0908.0591

You have contradicted yourself. You have not derived QCD
and electroweak theory by your own admission in the
paper:

I have derived important parts of it. IMHO the most
interesting
ones - the numbers of fermions, the gauge group, and the
action
of the gauge group on the fermions.

It doesn't look that way to me so I don't think so.

"The rejection of the manifestly Lorentz-covariant
approach
leads to another objection: It has not been introduced
without reason too. Manifest Lorentz covariance, on one
hand, simplifies computations. This is, obviously, not a
decisive argument. More serious is that, in our approach,
we do not have relativistic invariance. Indeed, our
construction from the start violates Lorentz covariance,
and
in many dierent ways: First, we handle time and space in
dierent ways, having a lattice only in space. Then, even
a
spacetime lattice would violate the symmetry ..."

There are also numerous remarks in 0908.0591 saying that
many future details have to be worked out by future
research. All in all, 0908.0591 has a lot of hand-waving
in
it.

So what? Parts of it are not finished (derivation of the
mass
terms), but other parts are quite well. In particular, the
derivation of the QCD group does not contain hand-waving.
You have the way how Wilson gauge fields can interact
with the lattice, you have the symmetry properties,
and that's it.

You do not have the symmetry properties because you yourself
wrote:

"The rejection of the manifestly Lorentz-covariant approach
leads to another objection: It has not been introduced
without reason too. Manifest Lorentz covariance, on one
hand, simplies computations. This is, obviously, not a
decisive argument. More serious is that, in our approach,
we do not have relativistic invariance. Indeed, our
construction from the start violates Lorentz covariance, and
in many dierent ways: First, we handle time and space in
dierent ways, having a lattice only in space. Then, even a
spacetime lattice would violate the symmetry ..."


I have derived the EEP for all matter fields
from my postulates for my generalization of LET.
It's in gr-qc/0205035.

General Relativity's lagrangian is not derived from
equations 76a through 78 in 0908.0591.

Of course not, the derivation is theorem 8 (from formula
(82))

I just checked it again. There is no derivation of L_GR
from any of your Euler fluid equations in 82 or anywhere
else in your writings.

Your claim that clocks and rulers giving
ether distorted values presuppose that empiricism is
either
unreliable or dubious.

Of course, positivism is dubious, nonsensical, and has
been
refuted long ago by Popper.

Empiricism assumes that clocks, rulers, and other measuring
devices correctly measure reality. If empiricism is
scrapped then science, by definition, cannot be done. The
basic idea in science is that everything must be testable.
It is that simple.

Either way it is an unscientific
assumption because if measuring devices are distorted in
some way, and are therefore unreliable, then there is no
way
to test anything.

You forget that there is a way. The theory can predict how
the
measuring devices are distorted, and one can make
predictions
about their results based on this.

But the whole thing is still unscientific. A theory that
predicts the breakdown of empiricism's reliability is
unscientific (by definition). To be scientific there has to
be a way to test for the existence of the distorting
material so that the bogus measurements can be adjusted for.

If that were true then science could not
be done because testing could not be done. Such is the
case
with intrinsically inaccurate measuring devices.

Nonsense. Science has reached very good results based on
intrinsically inaccurate measuring devices.

This is not true.

In my understanding, LET is SR with a hidden preferred
frame.
(I don't care much about particular historical
versions.)
In SR with hidden preferred frame I have any right to
use
Lorentz invariance for observables.

LET is not relativity with a hidden preferred frame
because
relativity requires the sameness of physical laws in all
reference frames. No such thing is stipulated in LET and
one cannot improve LET by simply stipulating it.

In many formulations of equivalence principles it is only
a claim made about our observations. Such formulations
make claims about the impossibility to distinguish certain
things by measurements. These principles hold in LET as
well as in SR, if you like it or not.

Those so-called `principles' do not hold in special, nor
general, relativity. Any `theory' that claims measurement
is, per-se, unreliable is unscientific (again, by
definition).

The reason
for that is because the illusory invariance would have to
be
derived from the properties of the space filling medium.

As I do (I need the Lagrange formalism and a particular
hypothesis about the Noether conservation laws.)

No you have not done it. As already explained, you need to
provide the full details of the `ether' to solve your own
quandary:

"The rejection of the manifestly Lorentz-covariant approach
leads to another objection: It has not been introduced
without reason too. Manifest Lorentz covariance, on one
hand, simplies computations. This is, obviously, not a
decisive argument. More serious is that, in our approach,
we do not have relativistic invariance. Indeed, our
construction from the start violates Lorentz covariance, and
in many dierent ways: First, we handle time and space in
dierent ways, having a lattice only in space. Then, even a
spacetime lattice would violate the symmetry ..."

This is one reason why 0908.0591 fails to derive QCD and
electro-weak theory. But you haven't derived relativistic
symmetry unless you can show that the relativistic laws
of
QCD and electro-weak theory are derivable from your
ether!

My derivation proves the EEP for all matter fields. In the
cellular lattice model, all the QCD and EW fields are
matter
fields.

No it does not, for the reasons I described above. You
cannot postulate ether, whose existence is untestable, claim
its properties are yet to be fleshed out, and then argue
that you have reproduced standard theory. On top of this,
your `theory' is not scientific because it has untestable
elements.

So you have not derived relativistic symmetry even in the
case of gravity because you do not derive general
relativity's lagrangian from ether principles.

I do. Of course, it is sufficient for this purpose to
refer
to the standard approach to the derivation of the GR
Lagrangian.

No you have not. The standard derivation of general
relativity has nothing to do with any so-called ether. As
pointed out above, you just grab L_GR, and use it, and then
claim that the Einstein equivalence principle follows from
your ether! That is simply cheating.

More
importantly, 0205035 fails to specify any self
interaction
within the ether that would make it `special
relativity-like' in its low gravity limit.

I don't need any such special "self-interaction". Once
I have derived the general Lagrangian, it is sufficient
to consider the standard no gravity limit to obtain
SR (or more accurate LET).

No, you do need it if you are claiming your ether fluid can
derive L_GR. You also need it if you are claiming that your
ether fluid can derive the Lorentz transformations.

In the modern understanding, LET is simply SR with
preferred
frame, and it is therefore about non-EM phenomena too.
And
you have to take into account it's generalization to
gravity
too.

No. LET theory has not changed since the early part of
the
20th century. It is not relativity with a preferred frame
for the reasons I specified above.

As I have already explained, I do not care about some
historical papers written by Lorentz in the early 20th
century.
I leave this to history of science.

I care about SR with a preferred frame, which is a
perfectly
reasonable theory.

Special relativity with preferred frame is
self-contradictory. Special relativity does not have any
preferred frames.


k


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!
    ... space filling medium. ... No. Relativity is a scientific theory because all of its ... There is no evidence of an ether. ... empiricism is such a drastic measure that scientists do not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... scientists threw away in 1905 as a description of relativity, ... not the Lorentz transformation equations. ... different inertial reference frames, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Precession of Binary Star PSR 1913+16
    ... methods I'm using are on par with General Relativity, ... all of the scientists that I've tried to ... No circular orbit can show precession. ... What is my average velocity, my maximum velocity and my minimum ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Einstein Cult Index
    ... be used to accurately model effects that involve changes of the frequency of oscillators ... and profiting from the promotion of General Relativity. ... to have the status of a religion. ... Sam and Sue are scientists, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... however useful they may have been to scientists in causing explosions, ... in the subject.but even what special relativity says you dont ... of velocity on the clock. ... I say it did not prove the Lorentz equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)