3D Space, relativity and presentism

[Mordred]

for the Lorentz transforms that is correct. However for the Lorentz ether that isn't correct lol. A preferred reference frame always at rest or a fundamental observer was the entire purpose of Lorentz ether.

 

This isn't the same as the modern day Lorentz transformations which is symmetric under constant velocity.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

The purpose of the Lorentz ether was to model and understand electromagnetic phenomena, as a guide for theoretical development (which was extremely successful). Without it, the second postulate is pure magic; or, as Einstein phrased it in 1920: "space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there [..] would be no propagation of light".

 

Also, the name "Lorentz transformations" was introduced by Poincare in 1905, and they were first presented by him in their symmetric form.

 

And I forgot to comment on another remark in your post #99: you wrote "Einstein showed a preferred frame is unnecessary". Well of course, no such assumption was needed for the derivation (from the second postulate!); but may I remind you, the starting point of this discussion happened to be the choice between either a 3D Absolute Space or a 4D Absolute Spacetime, so it's misleading to pretend that the 3D Space concept implies a superfluous entity compared to the alternative.

 

I discovered thanks to these discussions that it's quite the inverse: as one cannot avoid a form of presentism (to be reasonable one must include the observation of present time, be it by means of "presentism" or by means of "evolving block"), one has with "evolving block" an additional metaphysical entity ("eternal time") that 3D Space can do without.

 

But now the conversation is really drifting.

I'll abstain from more if it doesn't further contribute to the topic.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Tim88

[Mordred]

Sorry but quite frankly Lorentz first approach to the problem was to assume a frame that is always at rest. the Ether frame. It wasn't until Einstein who showed this as not being necessary. Even Poincare felt an ether must exist.

 

I love how you ignore this key detail the transformations you see today is not his original transformations. There is several stepping stones that led to the modern form.

 

Do you even understand the purpose behind an ether frane? your responses indicate to me that you don't.

 

A Lorentz ether frame is an absolute space where true time is represented. It is by every definition a preferred frame or absolute frame. In essence this frame is more real than any other frame. Its here-now is true spacetime while every other frame has coordinate time

 

You keep trying to state the modern day transformation maintains the Ether theory by ignoring the philosophical treatment of time itself. Preferred frame vs no frame preference.

 

presentism =preferred frame

eternalism =no preferred frame.

 

Can I be any more obvious? any theory or model that implies here-now is more real

indicates a frame preference. It states specifically here-now whatever frame that may be is more real than any other moment in time.

 

Which directly conflicts with relativity.

There is no frame preference. No moment in time is more real than any other

 

I really don't know how many times I have to repeat this before you finally clue in.

 

Of course your previous argument is that block papers are wrong, to defend your personal "relativistic presentism".

 

Which is a garbage argument. If your going to use Block terminologies stick with how that terminology is defined.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Apart of one detail, further answering to your points here would just continue the infinite loop, and some of what you try to make me understand happens to be what I already told you. But in a nutshell: SR contains no metaphysics, and physics is concerned with verifiable phenomena.

 

The detail: I don't ignore what I actually verified myself. It's straightforward to verify the step from Lorentz-1904 (the transformations of Lorentz) to Poincare-1905 (the modern "Lorentz transformations"). If you don't know how, please start it as a topic in the physics section.

 

We'll no doubt meet again in a future thread.

[Mordred]

I already know how the original derivitaves looked. I did research the topic. However thanks for the offer.

 

Tell me do you recall this quote directly from one of Lorentz memoirs?

 

"such was my thought - coordinate axes which have a fixed position in the aether and which we can call "true" time;"

 

You will know you have the right paper when you see the following transforms.

 

[latex]\acute{x}=kl(x+\epsilon t), \acute{y}=ly,\acute{z}=lz,\acute{t}=kl(t+\epsilon x)[/latex]

 

However even this is one of his later forms. 1914 I believe

 

Two Papers of Henri Poincaré on Mathematical Physics

by H. A. Lorentz

 

I used to have several of his older papers but can't recall where I stored them. If you happen to have reprint copies of his older works. I would be obliged. I enjoy studying how models were historically developed. The one mentioned above is still easily found.

 

As far as this thread goes we both seem to agree its run its course.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

I have a number of those papers at work. I'll check next week; will message you if I find something!

Note: I have no reprints, just copies of a number of his papers.

[Mordred]

Thanks much appreciated I have a copy of Principles of Relativity which has a collection of these papers but would prefer the seperate manuscripts.