So, I was having a "debate" with a fellow regarding special relativity. My argument was that Bell's Inequality suggests that a Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is correct.

The person I was debating argued that a Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is false because it's mathematical formalism differs from special relativity in such a way that precludes general relativity. (I assume he is referring to the Minkowskian interpretation of special relativity here.)

The problem being, literally everything I have read on the subject has stated that all three interpretations of special relativity have the same mathematical formalism.They are simply different ways of physically representing the mathematics. Also, GR apparently predicts the 'aether' postulated by the Lorentzian interpretation of SR.

The fellow I am debating claims he has studied physics and mathematics for 5 years.

Any input?

Cheers.

The person I was debating argued that a Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is false because it's mathematical formalism differs from special relativity in such a way that precludes general relativity. (I assume he is referring to the Minkowskian interpretation of special relativity here.)

The problem being, literally everything I have read on the subject has stated that all three interpretations of special relativity have the same mathematical formalism.They are simply different ways of physically representing the mathematics. Also, GR apparently predicts the 'aether' postulated by the Lorentzian interpretation of SR.

The fellow I am debating claims he has studied physics and mathematics for 5 years.

Any input?

Cheers.

## Comment