[Physics] Clock time vs. common sense time

[Doug Marett]

Hi Ilja,

    Wow, okay, we are in agreement then! I think I was originally under the
impression that you were a relativist because in one of the first posts you
made here you said:

" I have to admit that, even if it is open to various alternative
approaches, I'm interested only in such approaches which are compatible
with modern physics.  In particular, the theories I propose there have
general relativity and the standard model of particle physics as limits."

   However, if your theories are generalizations of the Lorentz ether, then
I am all for that! I will visit your site and take a look around.

Doug

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Ilja Schmelzer <
ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 2016-10-27 1:34 GMT+02:00, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>:
> > I am happy to hear that you are a Presentist, but then, are you not in
> > direct opposition to views of relativists?
>
> Of course I oppose relativism.  I'm an ether theoretician.
>
> But I object against invalid criticism of relativity.  So, special
> relativity is from a physical point of view simply an unfortunate
> spacetime interpretation of the Lorentz-Einstein theory, which has
> also a reasonable, presentist interpretation, the Lorentz ether.
>
> So, objections against relativity which talk about "Einstien's logical
> errors" and so on are simply nonsensical and have to be rejected.
> Similarly, claims that there is no time dilation are nonsense.  One
> has to understand that "time dilation" is about clock time, not true
> time, and that true time is not measurable with clocks.  And one has
> to develop ether theories, which are in agreement with all the
> observations of modern physics - as for gravity, as for particle
> physics, as for cosmology - even if they follow a different
> (non-relativistic, presentist) interpretation.  We can discuss this on
> http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/ too.
>
> As a consequence, my ether theory, which is a generalization of the
> Lorentz ether, is very close in its mathematics to GR.  And it is
> published in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal. It is so close to GR,
> that the Einstein Equivalence Principle holds exactly (even if not in
> its Strong variant), and that the Einstein Equations of GR appear in a
> natural limit of my theory.
> See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161027/5549a6bf/attachment.html>