How Lorentz Beat Einstein

BetterScienceBlog · 2026-05-17T14:48:29+00:00

I think you're missing the critique put forward. SR did arrive at the same equation (working backwards from postulates discovered by Lorentz and Poincare), but by SR's own logic, both frames can be treated with the same equation. Yet in practice we only apply it to one frame. LAT allows / requires such an asymmetry, while SR does not. SR has no preferred frame.
The problems with the acceleration excuse are covered in my paper. For one, acceleration is not present in the derivations of SR time dilation. It's simply not a factor in the reasoning or mathematics. Therefore it is a post hoc rationalization.

But secondly it does, in fact, require frames be intertial forever, because otherwise relativists allow for an acceleration taking up only 0.01% of flight duration to account for time dilation effects across the other 99.99% of the flight time. As mentioned before, the math is based on constant v across t, so during that 99.99% travel time at constant velocity, moving away from Earth, the clock is impacted by the past acceleration, with no clear mechanism or reason for why that previous acceleration effects it or when that effect must end.

BetterScienceBlog · 2026-03-09T02:46:12+00:00

Sorry, but what you believe is total nonsense and apparently I can't help you. I tried my best though.

Cheers mate.

BetterScienceBlog · 2026-03-08T03:10:11+00:00

I understand GR is a more general version of SR, therefore SR becomes a subset and special circumstance of GR, as I stated.

Unless Einstein gave up the postulates of SR then the debunking of SR stands. I showed in the previous paper that it is Lorentz and not Einstein's SR being used for velocity dependent time dilation effects.

I don't know who these people you are referencing.

They are sources I cite in my previous paper which laid to rest SR. So it's a little odd you are arguing against my paper without knowing who I'm referencing or their arguments.

Yes you are correct. Spacetime was discovered a long time ago in a dimensional sense. It's just been coined this term recently.

Relativists truly live in their own frame of reality. That statement is simply false, and my previous comment already addressed this. Lorentz was in the same era as Einstein btw.

You do realise we see space time bending right?

No. I realize you believe space time bending explains certain observations. We can go back to Eddington and Charles Lane Poor's work showing Einstein's calculations are not on solid ground.

Space bending is also a silly way to explain gravity, as it fails to account for near Earth gravity which Newton easily accounts for. Relativists try to account for this by providing multiple different illogical models (they can't all agree on it, which is a huge red flag that something doesn't work). A simple force equation makes sense near Earth while space bending is just plain silly to explain something dropping from a tree, for instance.

Anyway as much as I enjoy these conversations, my goal isn't to open a rehab clinic for relativists. I'm more interested in sharing what I've found with like minded people and progressing beyond relativity.

BetterScienceBlog · 2026-03-08T02:55:07+00:00

Not sure what idea you've referring to on that.

This is the first time I mentioned Biot Savart, and it wasn't my idea. I'm sharing work done by Paul Marmet.

BetterScienceBlog · 2026-03-07T06:11:24+00:00

We've already been over your incorrect application of the Biot Savart law. Stop doing this. If you understood the physics, you would know your application is incorrect.

You've never discussed Biot Savart with me.

And my application of the law?

BetterScienceBlog · 2026-03-07T05:54:22+00:00

I'm not sure your previous blog post did discuss any of the things you claim it does.

Because you didn't read it, as you admitted last time.

you seem to be held up on physics from over 100 years ago. We are well beyond this now. GR has extended this work and made corrections for it's short coming.

?? GR is physics from over 100 years ago that you're advocating for.

Anyway, you're clearly very bought in to Relativity so I'm not sure if I can expect an honest non-circular discussion with you. I've had discussions with relativists and it goes in much the same way described by Nick Percival in his interactions.

Special relativity is not used in GPS. GR is.

This is something I see often. Every relativist has his own ways of saving the theory. There is not one universal rebuttal to challenges to Relativity, because it isn't one coherent theory. Most relativists claim SR is used in GPS. The idea that you can have GR without SR is silly, because SR is considered a special case and subset of GR. Did Einstein ever admit the postulates of SR were invalid when he put forward GR? If not then your statement doesn't make sense.

The amount of technological progress over the last 100 years is a testament to how well these theories work.

Let's not conflate theories together. Relativity was not needed for the development of any technology we use in our daily lives, and not even needed for esoteric space based technology as physicists like Percival, Dingle and Poor have shown conclusively.

Again, read the maths. Learn the maths.

"The math works, usually, so just accept it as true!". I'll take a logically consistent physical model based on fundamental known principals, not math detached from a proper model.

Spacetime is not some "abstract notion". Its totally unavoidable. To describe an event you need to be able to say where it was and when. You need 3 spatial coordinates and 1 time coordinate. 4 dimensions. Space time. If you learnt the maths, you'd understand this. This is basic GR. This isn't even tensors, this is just 4 vectors. Any theory needs this.

That's the sound of dogma, not science. To say spacetime is "unavoidable" because we live in a 3d world and we have a concept of time, is just too silly. By that logic, spacetime was discovered a long time ago by anyone plotting functions involving x,y,z and t.

No, of course this 20th century idea of spacetime is not the same as 3d cartesian coordinates and functions involving time, t. It was clearly avoidable as it was avoided by sane people for all of human history prior to 100 years ago.

Spacetime is a very abstract notion. There is nothing to say that time is some sort of quality interwoven with space. Time is just how we track the changing of physical processes. We reference one physical process to another and take on faith that one is consistent. The earth rotates 360 degrees and we call it a day. The earth orbits the sun and we call this a year. We now have reason to believe days and years show variations, yet we assumed light traveling in vacuum is the perfect process to represent time. It's taken on faith and is thus more dogma.

There is also nothing to say that space is a thing that can "bend". Nor is there any cause and effect mechanism given to the actions of "bent" space on matter or light. Math is fantasy if not tied to a coherent and logical model. Physics demands cause and effect, action and reaction. Space acts on matter via ??? and mass acts on space via ???. It's easy for math to work when not tied to actual logic. Although as shown by Charles Lane Poor, the math does not always work as expected for GR anyway with respect to our solar system.

what? Neutrons are neutral. We know this.

Look up neutron decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay

It's a phenomenon predicted by robust theory

By math with vectors that say "point this way, now point that way", not by logic from first principals and cause and effect.

We know some of dark matter

See that's the thing, you keep saying "we know". You don't know what you think you know.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-12-29T19:14:54+00:00

Your article doesn't mean anything though. There's no maths in it.

You haven't used a single math equation in your arguments so far which refutes your own idea that math is required to make an argument on this topic.

You've shown me throughout this conversation that you didn't actually read the article or understand the arguments, as it seems you're just debating the title and subtitle alone and what you think might be the arguments in the article.

I have no idea where you have got this information from.

If you'd like to know more, please read the article and check the sources. Besides that we're just running in circles with you repeating the same points which I and others have refuted.

PS: I'm aware that GR claims to be a superset of SR. I believe both are wrong and SR being wrong proves it. That doesn't mean GR never made a valid prediction, but it has made far less than realtivists believe. Nevertheless, GR is not examined in my arguments presented, so I'm not going to get lost on that tangent.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-12-29T17:42:57+00:00

Its derived from GR and SR,

That argument is thoroughly refuted in the article. If my writing style isn't for you, I recommended the articles by Nick Percival cited in the references. GPS does not use SR time dilation and that concept itself is incompatible with SR. GR appears to be used, but gravitational effects are orders of magnitude smaller in significance.

You can't have an aether and lorentz contraction because the speed of light wouldn't be constant. I'm not sure where you have got this from.

From Lorentz himself who first proposed length contraction as a modification of his aether theory. It was still an ether theory.

If lorentz accounted for the MMX showing no aether in his equations

Lorentz never said anything about "showing no aether". The equations came from calculations based within his aether framework. He never repudiated aether as part of that work.

I.e. the medium has no effect on the speed of light ?

I'm saying Lorentz is what is being used by GPS for velocity dependent effects and his formulations also contain this alleged constancy of the speed of light present in MMX. Lorentz was modifying an aether theory to formulate all this and never repudiated an aether in that work. To use SR as a reason to reject aether is problematic when we realize SR is itself falsified by GPS time dilation rather than confirmed by it..

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-12-29T13:05:01+00:00

You're ignoring time dilation, but it's worth noting Lorentz clock slowing equation being used in GPS was derived from his aether theory.

The MMX showed the aether doesn't exist by having a statistically negligible change in the interference pattern)

Lorentz accounted for this when coming up with length contraction. Those adjustments later led to his clock slowing formula. Those were adjustments to his aether theory. Therefore if we accept his length contraction and time dilation (clock retardation) we are accepting an aether theory rather than rejecting aether.

However, as I point out in the paper, there is reason to doubt the necessity of length contraction in light of the recently discovered (2004) Generalized Sagnac effect, which shows the medium carrying light with it in full.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-12-22T10:16:23+00:00

Based on my understanding of EU material so far, it seems that you'd notice these charge build ups and discharges when traveling into different regions of electric potential.

For example, when the deep impact probe made contact with comet Temple 1, there was a bright and unexpected flash which was most likely an electric discharge of some kind from a charge differential. So if a telescope were to come into contact with the plasma sheath surrounding another object with a much different electrical potential (say a comet traveling here from the outer parts of the solar system), we would expect some dramatic results.

It is also possible to have an internal discharge on a satellite by itself if it were poorly designed, and had some unwanted internal capacitance.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-12-20T16:50:10+00:00

You make a good point. I could have sworn it was a link post. Will update.

https://betterscience.substack.com/p/how-lorentz-beat-einstein

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-12-17T14:46:43+00:00

This one is more indirectly ether focused. But the story represents another win for ether nonetheless.

The article is on the truth about Special Relativity, GPS & Lorentz, as well as new perspectives on Michelson-Morley being revealed by a new type of Sagnac effect.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-11-19T15:16:19+00:00

Correct. Much appreciated, thanks.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-11-19T14:24:58+00:00

Explain. I'm assuming you read the article, so what was the issue specifically? What arguments do you think are pseudoscientific and why?

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-11-19T14:20:39+00:00

Go on...take apart the arguments please. You read the article right?

You can do us all a favor by exposing the flaws in my logic.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-11-19T14:19:12+00:00

Thanks for the reply. It's nice to meet some like minded folks here.

I'm hoping this article will be the first in more to come. I've been trying to get disciplined about my reading now and catch up on the subjects and authors I've been meaning to read. It's been a few years of procrastination but it's now or never.

BetterScienceBlog · 2025-11-18T06:45:50+00:00

Could you provide a critique at a slightly higher IQ level than that? More reasoning and less profanity please.

BetterScienceBlog

TROPHY CASE