Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Lorentz Relativity, why?

  1. #1 Lorentz Relativity, why? 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    LR = Lorentz Relativity
    GR = General Relativity
    SR = Special Relativity

    Why do some creationists say that this theory is better than GR and SR? Why isn't LR accepted in science today (or is it?)? Is there some flaws or something in LR which makes it inferior to GR and SR?

    I thought that SR and GR perhaps is a more improved theory of LR, because Einstein did use some things from LR, right?

    I guess this topic will be about LR vs. Einstein's SR and GR.

    (Considering my lack of knowledge, I'm hoping to learn something new here )


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Lorentz Relativity, why? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    LR = Lorentz Relativity
    GR = General Relativity
    SR = Special Relativity

    Why do some creationists say that this theory is better than GR and SR? Why isn't LR accepted in science today (or is it?)? Is there some flaws or something in LR which makes it inferior to GR and SR?

    I thought that SR and GR perhaps is a more improved theory of LR, because Einstein did use some things from LR, right?

    I guess this topic will be about LR vs. Einstein's SR and GR.

    (Considering my lack of knowledge, I'm hoping to learn something new here )

    Define "better".

    What's your forte, basically?

    Does anyone know what IS better anyway?

    Anyone who presumes to know what is better presumes to know what direction of science has more potential than other directions, right?

    I think you are all running around in circles in not considering a second dimension of time, an automatic code of relativity, when you think about it (two times relative to one another: it alleviates a LOT of scientific headache).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Lorentz Relativity, why? 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    ...I think you are all running around in circles in not considering a second dimension of time, an automatic code of relativity, when you think about it (two times relative to one another: it alleviates a LOT of scientific headache).
    I personally find your theory to be an interesting and perhaps promising one, but back to the topic...

    Some people would say that LR makes more sence than GR and SR. And I'm wondering why? LR is an old theory, and I've thought that Einstein's SR and GR are perhaps a more improved version of LR.

    Are both theories accepted in science today?

    Is there a reason for why the one is "better" "more accepted" than the other?

    This is what I'm wondering about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Why do some creationists say that this theory is better than GR and SR?
    "Better" here means "it better fit's my delusional belief system" than "it explains things more accurately and more in depth than XYZ" Thats all. Creationists in general despise science as a concept. They do not like the idea that things become predictable (you can't blame "God's Will" after you screwed up) and/or understandable.
    Also you can't scare your kids with the Boogeyman/Devil/Eternal Damnation any more which - quite honestly - really sucks.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Lorentz Relativity, why? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    LR is an old theory, and I've thought that Einstein's SR and GR are perhaps a more improved version of LR.
    Hi Obviously!

    First a general comment: when replying to a post please do not quote the entire post. This makes it difficult for other members to know to which particular point(s) you are responding. Also, this practice has the potential to expand disk usage exponentially. So cut out the bits you want to comment on, just like I did here.

    Are both theories accepted in science today?
    No, they are not. Lorentz relativity postulates the existence of a universally "stationary" ether, which implies the existence of a universal rest frame. This means the assertion that the laws of nature are the same in all frames (proved to be true) does not follow naturally from any axiom of the theory.

    It also allows for Lorentz's life-long belief that, if light speed is c relative to the ether, it could anything you want in any frame in motion relative to the ether, again contrary to experiment
    Is there a reason for why the one is "better" "more accepted" than the other?
    In science, a theory is better if it simultaneously explains past experiments and more accurately predicts the results of future experiments than its rivals.

    If you want to know why it's more appealing to Creationists, you'd better ask them!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Thank you for your response, Guitarist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    First a general comment: when replying to a post please do not quote the entire post.
    Didn't think about that. I've cut down my reply to streamSystems. I'll be sure to keep in mind in the future not to quote more than neccesary :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    This means the assertion that the laws of nature are the same in all frames (proved to be true) does not follow naturally from any axiom of the theory.
    I'm not sure I understand Could you please elaborate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    According to the following Wikipedia article, the Lorentz Ether Theory is mathematically equivalent to special relativity.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
    He went on by saying, that there is little difference between the negation of a preferred reference frame, as in the theory of Einstein and Minkowski, to his own model. So it is a matter of taste which theory one prefers.
    Because both LET and SR are based on the Lorentz transformation, they are fully equivalent and it is not possible to distinguish between the theories by experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Why do some creationists say that this theory is better than GR and SR?
    With all due respect, what in the world does Lorentz or any other form of relativity have to do with Creationism? I understand that some Christians, or theists, or whoever, may have a problem with relativity, but I don't see what the connection with Creationism is.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    According to the following Wikipedia article, the Lorentz Ether Theory is mathematically equivalent to special relativity.
    Hasn't SR something to do with Lorentz Transformation as well?
    But about the link you provided (I didn't read much).

    The theory was developed particularly by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré and evolved into special relativity with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski.
    It seems to me that Special Relativity is an improved version Lorentz Relativity, am I wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    I understand that some Christians, or theists, or whoever, may have a problem with relativity, but I don't see what the connection with Creationism is.
    I'm not sure, but perhaps it has something to do with the work Barry Setterfield has done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •