Mordred

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.

That comment makes no sense but so far without seeing your math. Nothing you have stated makes much sense. The CMB is literally everywhere in our observable universe you can even hear it's static on older radios that don't filter it out. It may surprise you to know that expansion has little to do with gravity but rather it's due to thermodynamics via the equations of state for each particle species. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) If you take a uniform mass distribution and apply Newtons Shell theorem gravity is zero.

Hence why I stopped adding to the mix. Once I saw you were progressing from their comments I didn't want to add any potential confusion. Threads can get too easily derailed.

No you get a daily allotment

I gave them the +1 each for you.

Depends on the asteroid composition. The usefulness of a laser is to generate outgassing. For example an icy asteroid if you shoot a laser at it would more readily generate water vapors which would then provide thrust.

The first relativity never used the ether for the observer nor the emitter. It used the ether to describe how photons travelled between the two prior to proving ether wrong through the Michelson and Morley experiments. Those experiments are far far more precise in modern tests. Either way if you look at SR the emitter isn't ether and the observer isn't ether. Nor did Galilean relativity which the Lorentz transforms is simply an extension of (the Gamma factor constant of proportionality)

Everything in this post tells me you never actually studied the mathematics yourself. Had you ever studied the mathematics You would know Neither theory uses Ether. Nor does it uses the ether for a observer or relative to. Your claims is not what either theory states. Each frame of reference is emitter /observer relative to each other not the Ether. So forget thinking Ether is involved in either theory. That is absolutely incorrect

As I mentioned you would need the math to show this. You keep mentioning your math so you should already have the math handy for us to examine. I can easily show you all the mathematics behind the FLRW metric but that wouldn't help determine why you have an issue with it. If it's an issue with not knowing how to latex the math in let me know and I can demonstrate how our format uses \[\frac{1}{2}\,] I placed a comma in the last part to prevent it from activating. Your description of using spheres for example tells me you should have a spherical coordinate system with some constant of proportionality for the scale factor however that's based on your description. I need your math for confirmation.

Monopoles is an interesting study for example it's potential would fall off at 1/r as opposed to 1/r^2 for dipolar, 1/r^3 for quadrupolar ie the combination of two dipolar fields. As opposed to quadrupolar in gravity waves. Boit-Savant law can be uses to solve for the above if I recall.

Absolutely both SR and GR are able to solve the twin paradox. The paradox wasn't due to any lack of ability of either SR or GR. They both have the same transformation rules. The paradox arose in SR simply because of the constant velocity treatment which was incorrect. Take the acceleration into account and both SR and GR will get the same answer. Fundamentally the only real difference between the two is GR is better suited for field treatments and handles curvature terms better. The other difference is that in GR there is no "at rest observer" . Both SR and GR use the same transformation rules. They both employ the Minkowskii metric though in GR the Minkowskii metric is used in the weak field approximation. \[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\] Both are part of the SO(3.1) Poincare group. As they both use the same Lorentz transformation rules claiming one is incorrect while the other is correct is in error. Let's put it another way the solution to the twin paradox is identical in both SR and GR when correctly done

You might try including the math you speak of. First off you seem to have missed the detail that spacetime curvature vs flat directly describes the null geodesics of massless particles such as photons through spacetime. Hence we can test the curvature term by looking for distortions in the CMB.

My favorite method requires early detection take your spacecraft and instead of trying to trap it in a net. Which as mentioned isn't practical. Simply maintain distance from the asteroid and let gravity do its thing. Use the spacecraft plus the gravitational interaction between the two divert the asteroid to a new vector path. The further away you can do this the less change in vector angle that would be required for a miss.