EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

A Lorentzian Ether Probably Exists

15 points
0 points
SargonSargon (PRO)
I: Introduction

I want to thank my opponent for agreeing to participate in this debate with me.

I’ll introduce some common abbreviations and their meaning just so the audience doesn’t get confused.

SR= Special Relativity

NL= Neo-Lorentzian

MI= Minkowski interpretation

CMBR= Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

New Theory of Reference = NTR

Without further ado, let’s begin! (And, begin, indeed, in the sense of temporal becoming!)

II: The Downfall of Einstein’s Philosophy of Science

The philosophical foundation of Einstein’s theory was based on logical positivism and verificationism. While it may seem strange to argue against a scientific theory based on philosophy, an analysis of Einstein’s theory indicates that his philosophical presuppositions are an important part of it. As the book Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity states, ‘’The introductory sections of Einstein’s 1905 paper are predicated squarely upon verificationist assumptions’’. [1] The downfall of logical positivism and verificationism should give us serious reason to rethink Einstein’s interpretation. Tyler Burge, professor of philosophy at UCLA, once said that the central event in philosophy during the 21st century was ‘the downfall of positivism and the re-opening of discussion of virtually all the traditional problems of philosophy’’.[2] Logical positivism and verificationism are now widely rejected among philosophers today.

It seems that Einstein’s interpretation is also guilty of committing the mind-projection fallacy. This was a fallacy created by by physicist and Bayesian philosopher E.T. Jayne, which states that the way you see the world is not necessarily the way the world is. For example, different measurements of time are taken to mean that time is relative in reality, and that absolute time doesn’t exist. It’s obvious, however, that different measurements of time depending on the observers speed is an epistemological statement--that is, it relates to how we come to know things. There is simply no way of arguing that time is not absolute in reality just because people measure it differently. It relates to how we see time, not necessarily the way time really is.

Another interesting problem with the Minowski interpretation is that it, in some places, it outright contradicts the philosophy of language. The philosophy of language has many ideas, among them an idea which is called the New Theory of Reference. The NTR is considered to be true by the majority of philosophers of language. However, it implies absolute simultaneity. As the philosopher Quentin Smith writes in his article The New Theory of Reference Entails Absolute Time and Space: "it can be proven that the NTR entails the falsity of the relational theory of space, for otherwise all the relevant counter- factuals about places (e.g. , "He might not have been sleeping here") would be necessarily false."

Lorentz’s interpretation is philosophically superior in three ways. 1) It does not depend on logically positivistic and verificationist ideas. 2) It is not guilty of the mind-projection fallacy. 3) It is consistent with the philosophy of language and the NTR.

Remember, the definition of better was to be empirically and philosophically supported. These arguments establish that the LI is philosophically superior. Now let's turn to the empirical evidence...

III: Experimental Vindications of the Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is left-over radiation from the Big Bang explosion. It is taken as one of the best pieces of evidence that the Big Bang really happened [3]. The existence of the CMBR confirms Lorentz’s idea that there is an ether. The book Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity describes how the CMBR serves as an ether: ‘’The cosmic microwave background radiation fills all of space and is remarkably isotropic for any observer at rest with respect to the expansion of space. The radiation background will be anisotropic for any observer in motion with respect to an observer whose spatial coordinates remain fixed. It is therefore a sort of ether, serving to distinguish physically a fundamental universal reference frame.’’ As the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin writes in Time Reborn, ‘’Another way to fix a preferred family of observers is to use the cosmic microwave background. These preferred observers see the CMBR coming at them at the same temperature from all directions in the sky.’’ [4] It should be remembered that this is not merely theoretical, but that the motion of bodies has actually been measured relative to the CMBR. The following experiment is mentioned in Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity: ‘‘’Smoot, Gorenstein, and Muller discovered that the Earth is moving relative to the radiation background with a velocity of 390+60 km/sec in the direction of the constellation Leo. They comment, ‘’The cosine anisotropy is most readily interpreted as being due to the motion of the Earth relative to the rest frame of the cosmic blackbody radiation-what Peebles calls the ‘new aether drift’’’.’’’[5] (Wow, quotes inside quotes inside quotes!)

Alain Aspect’s experiments with Bell’s Inequalities also serve as experimental vindication of the NL interpretation. Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's inequalities demonstrate simultaneous causation with spatially distant photons. The measurement of one photon causes the other photon to instantaneously take on an anti-correlated spin [6]. A measurement of particle A causes an instantaneous change at particle B, which requires absolute simultaneity. The implications of this experiment on the Minkowski interpretation are huge, and some physicists and philosophers of physics take it as empirical falsification of the MI, and proof of the NL interpretation.

‘’To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden variables theory must embrace one observer’s definition of simultaneity [italics are not mine].’’[7] -Lee Smolin, physicist, who once thought that time was an illusion.

‘’The notion of non-local causality, discussed by Bell, requires a criterion of absolute simultaneity which has some absolute significance: it is seem that a cosmological basis for a universal measure of cosmic time resolves this problem...’’- S. J. Prokhovnik, physicist [8]

‘’[But] I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether-a preferred frame of reference...’’ -John Bell, physicist, talking about Alain Aspect’s experiment [9]

‘’We have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to...absolute space and time...’’ - Karl Popper, philosopher of science [10]

Further findings about the nature of empty space further demonstrate the truth of the NL interpretation. Einstein once said in a 1924 speech in Berlin that “to deny the aether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. “ [11] Modern day quantum physics directly and explicitly contradicts the idea that empty space has no physical qualities. Empty space, or rather, a quantum vacuum, does have physical qualities. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence from the quantum vacuum. [12] The evidence for these particles is extraordinary, so a serious scientists has to accept their existence. But, if virtual particles do exist, then empty space has physical qualities, and Einstein was wrong! We can take the existence of virtual particles as another falsification of Einstein’s interpretation.

IV: Conclusion

With the downfall of logical positivism and verificationism, as well as recent experiments conducted, the pendulum of physics is swinging back towards the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation. In order for Con to negate my arguments, he has a lot on his plate. He has to either 1) show that logical positivism and verificationism are actually good philosophies, or that 2) the MI can be reformulated without those assumptions. He also has to show that the MI interpretation does not commit the mind projection fallacy, which is the fallacy of reasoning that the way the world appears to you is the way the world really is. He also has to demonstrate that the CMBR cannot be used as experimental proof of the ether, and he has to comment on experiments that calculated the Earth’s velocity relative to it. Con must also reconcile the MI with two findings in quantum physics: Alain Aspect’s experiments and the existence of virtual particles. On top of all of this, he has to present his own arguments in favor of the MI interpretation. I eagerly await Con’s next round.


Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 3
A Universe From Nothing, pg 42
Time Reborn, pg 166
Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 29
The Fabric of the Cosmos, pgs 112-115
Time Reborn, pg 163
Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 33
Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 31
Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 73
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-07 13:17:53
| Speak Round
connorconnor (CON)
Based on a lack of research,and interest in the topic, I am giving this full win to Sargon. I accepted it hungry for a debate, but quickly realized this isn't my style. Good luck in future debates.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-25 05:42:27
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Einstein's philosophy resembled more with holism from Duhem than it did the positivists from the Vienna circle Sargon.
Posted 2014-03-03 20:27:06
Thinking of the MPF as applicable to experiments of the objective world and thinking that the NLT is experimentally verified seems contradictory.
Posted 2013-11-10 18:06:35
It seems E. T. Jaynes said the MPF was projecting a subjective idea unto the objective world. For example, claiming that a women is cute doesn't mean cute is an attribute of the external world. But with experiments in time dilation, we're studying the external world.

Posted 2013-11-10 17:44:26
Also, the mind projection fallacy seems to apply to all inductive reasoning. Maybe you can get around it by arguing probabilistically. Time is probably relative, because xyz. It only occurs when "someone thinks that the way they see the world reflects the way the world REALLY IS"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy caps mine] but this doesn't eliminate probability. Maybe I'm just nitpicking over words, I don't know.
Posted 2013-11-10 17:33:24
Sargon, I can foresee an objection to the NTR argument. I don't find it convincing, because the best way to use language doesn't do anything to reality.
Posted 2013-11-10 17:27:19
Nerd PoliticoNerd Politico
For We Are Many...
Posted 2013-11-07 05:13:24
Huah lets do this. Team Legion is going to be at the top of the leaderboard!
Posted 2013-11-07 02:59:22
Whoever submitted that empty comment as spam - OK sure, I guess it's not really spam but probably should be removed anyway.
Posted 2013-11-06 23:58:51
Nerd PoliticoNerd Politico
And that, TUF, is exactly the type of attitude that I like about debating. Get sum.
Posted 2013-11-06 15:48:23
Me neither I just wanted to debate here. Ill do research on the subject though.
Posted 2013-11-06 13:22:36
Nerd PoliticoNerd Politico
I don't even know what that title means. Can't wait to learn from it. When it's done, please let me know so I can vote.
Posted 2013-11-06 03:21:25
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2013-12-03 06:43:51
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Sargon
Sargon presented a clear and consise case for the resolution, Ultimate Fighter capitulated.
I especially loved the fact that Wikipedia wasn't referenced once. Kudos.
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2013-12-06 03:19:59
NightofTheLivingCatsJudge: NightofTheLivingCats
Win awarded to: Sargon

1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2013-12-06 14:32:21
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Sargon
2013-12-11 05:41:10
JV-StalinJudge: JV-Stalin
Win awarded to: Sargon
FF and concession
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2013-12-12 05:16:40
TheAntidoterJudge: TheAntidoter
Win awarded to: Sargon
It seems that Con has forfieted in this regard: although it was quite a suprise to me. Must be those Elections.
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2013-12-13 06:34:07
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Sargon
I voted for Sargon because TheUltimateFighter was in this round, not the ultimate fighter and forfeited.

Work a little more on debating and you'll get better, trust me. :)
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2013-12-16 21:39:34
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: Sargon
Based on a lack of research, and interest in the topic, I am giving this full win to Sargon. I accepted it hungry for a debate, but quickly realized this isn't my style. Good luck in future debates." Full forfeit like a pussy b*tch! Go and cry to your mother or something about this. Seriously you should be ashamed that you ever debated here in the first place. TUF must evolve as a debater and never, ever coward out of a debate like this Ever again! Also, Sargon's arguments were flawless so Sargon wins.

Do not call yourself an ultimate fighter if you are just a baby poop. You must take up a debate ready to annihilate the opponent and then fail anyway because you are a baby poop.

My mother can debate better than you and she is the most illogical person I have ever debated with. Go and self-delete your account and if that isn't possible just poop your pants.

Anyway, props to Sargon for a clean debate, TUF (I just realised what TUF's shitty name stands for) need sot learn how to debate. Sargon would probably have won regardless of the forfeit.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2014-01-02 19:01:58
gabbsmcswagginJudge: gabbsmcswaggin
Win awarded to: Sargon
2014-01-07 00:24:34
De@thJudge: De@th
Win awarded to: Sargon
well structured way of presentation, with proper and 'seemingly' good research done on the topic.
The lack of counter-arguments denied the opportunity for a proper judgement, though considering whatsoever has been put forth, I'd consider Sargon as winner. However, I like the way in which entire idea was presented, with proper introduction, multiple bodies and a comprehensive conclusion. Good work indeed.

Although I liked the mode of presentation of Sargon, am not in any favour of topic selection. In a general debating platform, it is always preferable to bring in general ideas/thoughts/controversies than something pretty specific and scientific of this kind. As evident from the outcome of debate, one might win it, but even without any debate, which is in-fact of no good to any considering that we are here to debate rather than just to present a technical paper. I hope its clear.
And to TheUltimateFighter, it would always be good to avoid getting into a debate if you don't really plan to do it, just my personal suggestion.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 weeks
  • Time to vote: 3 months
  • Time to prepare: None
This debate will be about whether the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is better than the Minkowski interpretation of special relativity. I will be taking the position that the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is better. Con will be taking the position that the Minkowski interpretation is better. The winner of this debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, when you weight each side, one side was better supported than the other.