Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
You may be misunderstanding my assertion: the fixed frame idea, known sometimes as Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) is possible only. Normal Special Relativity with no fixed frame, also called Block Universe (BU), is preferred by most physicists.

Here's one of many references I could give: "PF’s policy on Lorentz Ether Theory and Block Universe", https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/p...-universe/. An insight article from Dale. This is gospel, establishment physics! There is no controversy about this issue. Quote from the article:

"The LET considers the universe to be a 3D world evolving over time and with a single undetectable “true” rest frame. Both BU and LET use the Lorentz transform, etc., to make all of their experimental predictions, and therefore they are scientifically indistinguishable, making the same experimental predictions in all cases."

Having understood that in Special Relativity, fixed frame is not ruled out, what about GR? By the same reasoning fixed frame is possible there also. But GR philosophy is very much against it, and many of the stranger GR concepts, like wormholes, are impossible. But there is no experimental data to disprove fixed frame. It's harder to establish for GR so for the time being let's concentrate on SR. Until you see that SR allows fixed frame there's no point in considering GR.

We haven't heard from Schmelzer in a while unfortunately! Fixed-frame is fundamental to all his work. If it's impossible all the other topics on this web site - in the main section, "The Ether vs. Relativity" - are ridiculous. Go to the main page and read some of his work there, you'll see that he agrees with me. That may help convince you.

If you claim SR (and GR) doesn't allow fixed-frame you disagree with the entire mainstream physics community! That's the main point I'd like to get across. If you understand and acknowledge that, but still disagree, we can get into detailed arguments. But I don't want to do that until you read the establishment position, there's no point in repeating these standard arguments that professional physicists have already explained better than I can.

I agree with your Wheeler and Einstein quotes (with minor quibble regarding the word "real"). Also with your take on what Christian is trying to provide.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 09-01-2016, 01:28 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 44 Guest(s)