Mordred

I'm actually going to state that I agree the manner its often presented requires a more detailed presentation. I know I'm one of those parties as velocity can also be treated via rapidity its actually more accurate to state acceleration is boosting or rotating the rapidity. As we have two forms of acceleration change in direction and change in velocity. lets take a problem set. Lets have a constant acceleration for however many years. A couple of key notes there is more than one type of boost. the boost for velocity depends on \(\beta\) the velocity parameter. Now I'm sure you agree using velocity addition for a constant accelerating observer can get clunky. So this is where rapidity steps in. this describes the Lorentz boost equations ( for other readers I know you know these details) \[\acute{x}=(x-vt)\] \[\acute{t}=\gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^2})\] \[\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-b^2}}\] \[\gamma=v/c\] so the constant velocity observer will have the above Lorentz boost.. however constant acceleration its more useful to use the boost parameter not the speed parameter. This is is the rapidity given by the tanh function. \[\varsigma=\tanh{-1}\beta\] from which \(cosh\varsigma=\gamma\) and \(\sinh\varsigma=\beta\gamma\). Now that's the Lorentz boosts in terms of rapidity. So rapidity can be used instead of velocity. however we need acceleration so lets have the x,y,t planes. for simplicity. now a rotation in the x,y plane describes the change in angle \[\begin{pmatrix}x_a\\y_a\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\cos\varphi&-sin\varphi\\sin\varphi&cos\varphi\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x_b\\v_b\end{pmatrix}\] \[\frac{dy}{dx}=tan(\theta)\] for changes in {x,t} we are boosting the velocity or alternately the rapidity . As rapidity can also describe velocity. \[\begin{pmatrix}t_a\\y_a\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\cosh\varsigma&-sinh\varsigma\\sinh\varsigma&cosh\varsigma\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x_b\\v_b\end{pmatrix}\] \[\frac{dx}{cdt}=tanh(\varsigma)\] so yes we need to be more clear I agree or rather I need to be more clear. you certainly use rapidity for both types types of acceleration but you can also use rapidity for velocity. As mentioned I should state acceleration via change in velocity is a boost in the rapidity, while a change in direction is a rotation of rapidity. Does acceleration require rapidity no and you and I have agreed on this in the past if you recall. However as shown it certainly does apply to acceleration. yes of course I agree on that but it also applies to acceleration as shown you can also boost the rapidity or rotate it. If you understood the relation of rapidity to relativistic velocity I really have a hard time understanding why you would think it wouldn't apply to change in velocity at relativistic speeds or changes in direction at relativistic velocity ?

That's the real crux a total lack of evidence.

No I'm familiar with the research that went into Lorentz ether theroy I also know it's transformation rules including many of the other variations . The thing is the physicists performing those Lorentz invariant tests are also well aware of neo-lorentz. So they also conducted tests for that in that article. Here is the detail many miss. In Lorentz time the only known particles were the photon the electron and the proton. That was at that time the entire standard model. The neutron wasn't even discovered until the mid 30's. So it was quite natural to think there was am ether. Modern physics has gone beyond that including particles that are so weakly interactive they could pass through a chunck of lead one light year in length without a single interaction. (Neutrinos). However it's also well known every particle species contributes to the blackbody temperature in particular the CMB including those neutrinos. So why do we not detect any temperature contribution from the Lorentz ether ? Why does it have no influence on universe expansion ? Every other particle does. The way is if you have a static 100 percent non interacting field but then it wouldn't even interact with gravity let alone photons. Or any other particle. We can certainly gather indirect or direct evidence of every other particle in the standard model. Why not the Lorentz ether ? Then why would you claim otherwise and argue that c isn't invariant ? Sounds like you don't even understand Lorentz ether theory.... Then why would you claim otherwise and argue that c isn't invariant ? Sounds like you don't even understand Lorentz ether theory.... in point of detail. Had you actually studied its mathematics. It was a valiant effort to meet observational evidence and keep c invariant to all observers. That is actually harder than one realizes when you have light travellings through a medium.

No I know the paper your referring to that proposed that. It was published well over a decade ago. I even recall numerous discussions on its merit on other forums. The claimed that supposed one way speed of light tests were two way tests All that did was motivate the physics community to develop new tests. This paper mentions some of those tests and regularly updated. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.02029 Though this is the 2021 update. It's not even close to a complete list but it covers some of the major ones.

Here is the thing modern physics and research states c is invariant to all observers. The modern tests make the Michelson and Morley experiments look like child's play. It has always been a heavily researched topic. It is far too critical in all major theories for any potential error.

Oh I certainly can show you 100's of professional peer reviewed literature showing light is invariant to all observers. The tests for lorentz invariance is literally up to 1 part in 10^18 for any possible variance. We literally test SR and GR every single day via particle accelerators etc the amount of research and tests involving the speed of light is astronomical

Not if you want mainstream answers. There is no ether in mainstream physics

The speed of light remains invariant to all observers that is precisely what invariant means. The confusion is on your end

Precisely time is not absolute. If that's what you believe you need to catch up to modern research.

No I'm not I know precisely how SR and GR works including the related math. I use it all the time as a professional physicist. Here is a challenge for describe at point between two observers in different reference frames where simultaneaty can be said to occur. Then add a third observer

Both velocity and accelerations are boosts in the the Lorentz transforms. I know you and I had tried discussing this in the past. Later on when I'm not at work I will try to get you far better detail on the difference of a boost due to velocity as opposed to acceleration. Part of the confusion is that both velocity and accelerations are also described by rapidity. However the transforms for each slightly differ .

I doubt using a laser from Earth regardless of how powerful would be of much use. Ideally you would want to use the laser on a side perdendicular to its trajectory. If you fire from Earth you would thr asteroid head on and outgassing wouldn't be as useful.

It would really help if one understands a physics theory correctly before you try to interpret a theory. It's rather pointless otherwise. Anyone that understands relativity by knowing what the mathematics of the theory states. Simultaneaty is of little use in this case as it's coordinate dependent. This is due to time not being constant. For example an observer looks at his watch. However that's simply his coordinate time. The other observer does the same for coordinate time. Due to time dilation regardless of whether it's due to gravity or inertia his clock will appear to run normal. However once you compare clocks then the difference is noticed. The two clocks are no longer simultaneous welcome to relativity and it's time dilation

Wiki isn't written by a physicist. It has zero authority in the physics. Any discussion involving physics to have any use whatsoever must always include the math. It's rather useless to discuss interpretations of any physics theory without knowing what those mathematics actually describes.

You know it's funny to declare GR cannot solve the twin paradox when it's in nearly every textbook on GR. Acceleration is easily handled in both SR and GR. It's simply a type of boost called rapidity. You can alternately use instantaneous velocities. So really it's a poor defense for a theory Long shown inaccurate specifically the Lorentz ether theory. Particularly since it ties into Lorentz invariance which current tests is something of order of 1 part in 10^(18) for any deviation on the constancy of c. That is rather conclusive for any potential of any ether based theory being viable. Yes I've read lots of attempts to salvage LET over the years including professional written articles and examinations none of have ever born out though. I even have copies of those various models. Though it would take time to search for them.