"The Einstein Hoax-1"
ret...@home.com
Special Relativity"
http:/members.home.net/retiche/hoax.htm
E-mail:- ret...@home.com
As a young man in the 1950's the writer decided to make a good faith
effort to learn about the phenomena described by the Special Theory of
Relativity and by the General Theory of Relativity. The motive for
this effort was an innate dissatisfaction with the assertion that the
phenomena could only be understood in terms of mathematics and was
beyond understanding at the intuitive level while my desire was to
achieve an understanding of the mechanization employed by nature to
cause the effects described by the theories. My assumption at the time
was that the subject matter was well thought out and rigorously
correct and my task was to understand what men far more knowledgeable
than myself had already learned.
As I delved into the subject I became puzzled, it was obvious that the
Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (1903) was actually a special case
solution of Special Relativity (1905). It provided the same
mathematics and each was derivable from the other. Under Special
Relativity, it was asserted that there was no preferred velocity
reference frame (the Aether of Michaelson and Morley) and any velocity
reference frame between the limits of +/-C was valid for the
evaluation of experimental observations. Under the Lorentz
Contraction-Aether Theory, there was a preferred reference frame (the
Aether) but, because of the finite velocity of light, we could not
determine our velocity with respect to it. However, since the Lorentz
Contraction-Aether Theory was a special case solution of Special
Relativity, any disproof of the existence of the Aether would also
invalidate Special Relativity. (Dr. Einstein warned at the time
"remember gentlemen, we have not disproved the existence of the
Aether, we have merely proven that we do not need it [for
computations]". )
In reading responsible texts written in the 20's which described the
history of the Aether and Electromagnetism, the writer was astonished
to learn that J.J. Thomson derived E=M*C^2 in 1888 from Maxwell's
Equations and that until the turn of the century there was a running
debate as to whether the correct expression was E=M*C^2, E=0.75*M*C^2,
or 0.5*M*C^2. Regardless of which was the correct coefficient, it was
clear that the relationship between energy and mass had been
established well before the Special Theory of Relativity had been
published.
Something strange seems to have been going on in the world of
theoretical physics. If Thomson had provided E=M*C^2 and the Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory had predated the Special Theory of
Relativity (Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Larmor) and had provided the
transformations for mass, length and time, exactly what was Dr.
Einstein's contribution and why has history given him all of the
credit? The answer was provided in those same historical texts with
the statement "Dr. Einstein's principle contribution was not Special
Relativity, it was the demonstration that advancements in theoretical
physics could be made through the use of mathematics and, since
mathematics could be taught to anyone, it was no longer necessary to
await the contributions of the few great minds that arise in each
century in order to make progress". This meant that the ranks of
theoretical physicists could be expanded greatly and it was for this
reason that significance of Dr. Einstein's work was elevated and
credit for the work of the real contributors to understanding was
suppressed.
While this realization disturbed the writer on ethical grounds, it did
not cause an intellectual problem since the Lorentz Contraction-Aether
Theory was easily understood at the intuitive level and it was
actually the same theory as Special Relativity would be if it were
possible to establish "absolute" simultaneity between physically
separated locations, perhaps by using a signal which traveled at a
quasi-infinite velocity. A measurement of the difference in
"simultaneity" obtained by such a signal and the "simultaneity"
established by signals which traveled at the velocity of light would
immediately reveal our absolute velocity through space, exactly as
Michaelson and Morley attempted. (It was for this reason that it was
apparently vital to discredit the idea of tachyons.) Unfortunately for
the Special Relativity interpretation, experiments in quantum physics
have demonstrated that polarization coupling between paired photons
travels at a velocity at least four times the velocity of light. A
minor modification to the basic experimental setup which was employed
would allow a reduction in the "simultaneity" uncertainty between
physically separated reference frames by at least a factor of four,
and if the error reduction techniques commonly employed in information
processing equipment worked as well as they do in other applications,
this error would be reducible by another factor of 100. We would then
know our absolute velocity through space to an accuracy of better than
500 miles per second. The effect of such an experiment would be to
demonstrate that the Space-Time concepts associated with Special
Relativity were naive and to ressurect the Lorentz-Transformation
Aether theory as the correct interpretation of reality. Special
Relativity would then remain only as a computational convenience.
In 1915, Dr. Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity based
upon the Principles of Equivalence and of Relativity. This theory
provided a "time dilation" as a function of the gravitational
potential difference between elevations. When this time dilation is
examined, it is found that it is not multiplicatively commutative.
This means that, in taking an elevator from the first floor to the
third floor of a building one would obtain a different result if the
elevator happened to stop at the second floor, a clear absurdity. It
should be obvious to all that the Special Theory of Relativity would
not "work" if the Lorentz Transformations were not multiplicatively
commutative. General Relativity, in other words, is not consistent
with the Principle of Relativity. In addition, General Relativity
provides a "length dilation" of unity between reference frames which
are at different gravitational potentials in contrast to the Lorentz
Transformation for Length which is the reciprocal of the Lorentz
Transformation for Time. Since the relationship for the gravitational
dilations for length and time of General Relativity are not analogous
to the corresponding relationships of Special Relativity, it is clear
that, under General Relativity, gravitational acceleration cannot be
equivalent to inertial acceleration. We have the strange situation in
which General Relativity contradicts the major postulates upon which
it is based. Clearly something is wrong with the theory!
Dr. Einstein struggled with the derivation of General Relativity for
about 18 months and finally resorted to the non-Euclidean geometry of
Riemann to add another degree of freedom to the problem and permit it
to be solved mathematically. Apparently, either he did not understand
the physical significance of the relativistic phenomena or he did not
realize that, in attempting to use Tensor Calculus to devise a
relativistic theory, he was performing a forbidden mathematical
operation. In using Tensor Calculus for a purpose for which it was not
suited he arbitrarily forced the "length dilation" to be unity rather
than allowing it to have its correct value. This mathematical defect
introduces an error which is proportional to the square of the
gravitational potential and is far too small to be detected within the
extremely weak fields of the Solar System (the gravitational potential
from infinity for the Sun is 10^-6 and for the Earth is 10^-9).
However, since General Relativity is a relativistic theory, its first
order effects for the weak fields within the Solar system were within
the limits of observational accuracy and General Relativity was
considered to have been verified. Observations of closely orbiting
massive stars, where the gravitational involved potentials are near
enough to unity to reveal any such errors, have also been considered
to verify General Relativity. However, unless those observations can
be coupled with close in observation of the orbits involved (requiring
the availability of Star Trek's Warp Drive), they can only demonstrate
that gravity is a relativistic phenomena. They cannot demonstrate that
General Relativity is the correct description of that phenomena.
As a gravitational theory, General Relativity has a severe fault.
While it is successful in predicting orbital paths in weak fields, it
cannot explain the force which holds you to you chair or the energy
which would soon be applied to your body if you fell from a window! In
the discussions which were held at the time, two surprising statements
were accepted as valid. The first was that it didn't matter that
General Relativity shows the that gravitational field created energy,
the First Law of Thermodynamics was not violated because that energy
could not escape from the field. The second statement was "why
shouldn't we consider space to be curved, no one can prove that it
isn't!" (The latter statement is not true, in "Gravity" a rigorous
proof is provided that the observed bending of light in the
gravitational field requires that space be three dimensional
Euclidean.)
The most unfortunate part of Dr. Einstein's work is that it made it
possible for individuals who might be reasonably described as
mathematical "idiot savants" (individuals with a strong mathematical
capability but with a far lower than average capability to "visualize"
the workings of reality) to co-opt the field of theoretical physics.
They then acted to conceal their less than normal ability to
understand reality by suppressing the legitimate questions which arose
as being due to the questioner's inability to handle the mathematics
instead of being an indication of a possible defect in the theory. For
example, it should be obvious to anyone whose reasoning processes are
not limited to mathematics and has not had his native intelligence
damaged by excessive domination by a community of individuals who
cannot reason without the use of mathematics, that the mathematics of
Special Relativity would not work unless:
A:- Nature uses the velocity of light to control the parameters of
matter.
B:- The independence of the velocity of light from the velocity of its
source is characteristic of a wavelike disturbance propagating through
a medium and not of a particle propagating ballistically through empty
space.
C:- The medium through which such a wave propagates must be solid in
order to transmit the transverse waves of light and it must be
continuous to prevent dispersion from blurring the light of distant
stars.
D:- In order for material particles to be able to pass through this
rigid medium, what we consider to be material particles must actually
be a form of wave motion in the medium.
A clear example of the intellectual level of the physics based on
Special and General Relativity was recently provided in a NOVA
television program on PBS dealing with the possibility of time travel.
One portion of that program was dedicated to the description of an
experiment which compared the rate of passage of time as measured by
two identical atomic clocks. One clock remained in place and the other
was transported around the world on a jet aircraft. The difference in
elapsed time between the two clocks was exactly as predicted by
Special Relativity. This result was taken, by the physicist involved
and by the mainstream physics community, to prove that the rate of
passage of time slows as a result of velocity. The experimenter stated
that he (and by implication his colleagues) considered that the rate
of passage of time is what clocks report it to be. Such a conclusion
is convenient but not valid because it assumes a fact which is not yet
in evidence, a behavior which is both forbidden in a Court of Law and
which represents extremely BAD SCIENCE. The observed effect can be
explained by concluding that velocity effects either the rate of
passage of time or the calibration of clocks, or by a combination of
both possibilities. Fortunately there is a physically realizable
thought experiment which can settle this type of question at least for
the gravitational field. It shows that the "time dilation" associated
with an elevation difference results from a change in the calibration
of clocks while the rate of passage of time itself remains unchanged.
(The experiment is described in the Website.)
If the observed time dilation between elevations in a gravitational
field results from a change in the calibration of clocks, then the
Principle of Equivalence requires a length dilation between elevations
to exist which results from gravitationally induced change in the
calibration of length measuring equipment. Such a length dilation is
rather satisfying since it eliminates the concept of "curved space"
and accounts for the energy released by "falling". Really though, the
proof is in the testing. The experiment is described at the Website
and it should be performed.
The Website contains three texts. The second text, "Gravity" is a
rigorous derivation of the gravitational field which avoids the
pitfalls of Tensor Calculus by avoiding the process of mathematical
integration. Instead, it uses the Principle of Relativity, the Law of
Conservation of Energy in a closed system, and Dimensional Analysis
to derive gravitational transformations which are analogous to the
Lorentz Transformations and which satisfy the Principles of Relativity
and of Equivalence. (It should be noted that the intellectual tools
required to provide a complete understanding of the effects of
velocity and gravity do not require sophisticated mathematics, they
are within the knowledge base of undergraduate engineers and are
easily followed in their descriptive form by reasonably bright and
motivated High School graduates.) These transformations were found to
be astonishingly rich. They led unexpectedly to an understanding of
the force which limits gravitational collapse, (no Black Holes or
Wormholes), a description of the event which we erroneously describe
as a "Big Bang" (it's really a cosmic squish), and a description of
how the Universe was created and why it will expand forever. (The
writer did not "force" these conclusions and was quite surprised when
the transformations provided them.) Interestingly, the writer was told
by a retired physicist who reviewed the first version of "Gravity" in
the early 70's that it was unquestionably correct but it should be
dropped like a hot potato if I made my living in the academic
community for it would end my career, otherwise I should have a ball.
So much for academic freedom. (It should be noted that the material on
the Website would not be presented if it led to predictions which had
not already been verified by observations, but it does hsow that there
is more than one way to skin a cat.)
The first text, "The Einstein Hoax" is a description of both Velocity
Relativity and Gravity Relativity in a form which is more readable and
is readily understandable by individuals of normal intelligence. (A
working knowledge of freshman physics and an understanding of calculus
is helpful but not essential.) Mathematically trained physicists with
a weaker than normal understanding of reality will, of course, have a
problem with this material. This text starts with basics and follows
the trail to the end where the nature of particles is discussed.
The final text, "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special Relativity"
eliminates the "Right Angle Lever Paradox" of Special Relativity by
deriving the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force correctly;
uses the Lorentz Transformations for Force and Length to show where
kinetic energy is stored and thus reveals the nature of inertial mass;
and eliminates Special Relativity's inability to deal with
acceleration by deriving the Lorentz Transformation for Incremental
Mass as Mi = F*[dT]/[dV] (This is the same expression used in
classical mechanics for systems having a negligible relative
velocity). The classic Lorentz Transformation for Mass is the integral
of this expression between the velocity limits of 0 an V.
If you have read the material at the Website, and have an objective
criticism, you will receive a courteous reply and, if your criticism
cannot be refuted, your input will either be incorporated to correct
the text or, if the criticism is of sufficient import, the text will
be withdrawn. So far, the material has received two types of
responses. One type (60%) is extremely favorable and expresses
gratitude for the fact that it clears away most of the mysteries. The
other type (I presume from the academic community) is insulting but
has yet to provide an objective criticism on any point. One thing can
be stated with certainty, the WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER QUALITY OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE TO WHOM IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
There is hope, however. Not only have observations in the field of
Quantum Physics shown that information can travel faster than the
velocity of light, the results of the COBE experiment have found the
location of the original "Big Bang" from which the Universe was
formed. Since the location of this point provides a preferred velocity
reference frame for the Universe, it refutes the ideas of Space-Time
which flowed from Dr. Einstein's work. The COBE observations also
revealed that the Universe is flat (Three dimensional Euclidean) and
refutes the idea of "curved space" provided by General Relativity. A
side effect of this refutation is that there is no longer any conflict
between gravitational theory and quantum theory and the string and
superstring theories become irrelevant.
It is the author's hope that eventually theoretical physics will be
forced to reintegrate Lord Raleigh's idea that it is necessary to
construct a intuitive conceptual models of the physical workings of
nature to work in parallel with the mathematical models and the
experimental results currently employed.
At present theoretical phsyics is like a stool with only two legs. It
needs a third leg to be reliable. I suspect that most of those who
read this would feel uneasy sitting on a two legged stool.
http://members.home.net/retiche/hoax.htm
E-mail:- ret...@home.com
Stephen
> As I delved into the subject I became puzzled, it was obvious that the
> Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (1903) was actually a special case
> solution of Special Relativity (1905).
Your claim is incorrect: those are two separate theories, with entirely
different postulates, and neither is a special case of the other or
derivable from the other.
> A clear example of the intellectual level of the physics based on
> Special and General Relativity was recently provided in a NOVA
> television program on PBS dealing with the possibility of time travel.
A clear example of the intellectual level of "The Einstein Hoax" was
provided by its use of a TV program as a basis to criticise theoretical
physics.
--
"This isn't a story. It's not about anything. Read it if you want."
Nathan Urban
> In article <3932a850.2020483@news>, ret...@home.com wrote:
> > As I delved into the subject I became puzzled, it was obvious that the
> > Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (1903) was actually a special case
> > solution of Special Relativity (1905).
> Your claim is incorrect: those are two separate theories, with entirely
> different postulates, and neither is a special case of the other or
> derivable from the other.
One might say that as theories, they're not equal but are isomorphic,
in the sense that they have different postulates but make the same
testable predictions...
GLOBARR
nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban) wrote:
>In <stephenwells-3...@mac008.joh.cam.ac.uk>,
>stephe...@deathtospam.hotmail.com (Stephen) wrote:
>
>> In article <3932a850.2020483@news>,
>> ret...@home.com wrote:
>
>> > As I delved into the subject I became puzzled, it was obvious
>> > that the Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (1903) was
>> > actually a special case solution of Special Relativity (1905).
>
>> Your claim is incorrect: those are two separate theories,
>> with entirely different postulates, and neither is a special
>> case of the other or derivable from the other.
>
Nathan Urban wrote:
>One might say that as theories, they're not equal but are
> isomorphic, in the sense that they have different postulates
> but make the same testable predictions...
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Well thank you, Nathan, for at least trying a little to rectify this
mistatement of Wells. These two theories, as presented today,
are identical, in their math predictions. And they do relate, as
I present them. SR is the correct math, and the correct ether
theory is the correct physics that goes with the correct math.
And thus these two theories are in reality the same theory!
Either one can be used to obtain the other. You can start
with the correct physics, and from it, get the correct math!
You can start with the correct math, and figure out the
correct physics. Anyone with a brain could do these
simple things!!!!!
Thanks!!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
(Some day we will be able to read the FAQ?)
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
sh...@my-deja.com
> SR is the correct math, and the correct ether
> theory is the correct physics that goes with the correct math.
> And thus these two theories are in reality the same theory!
> Either one can be used to obtain the other. You can start
> with the correct physics, and from it, get the correct math!
> You can start with the correct math, and figure out the
> correct physics.
Not really. The math is an integral part of a physical
theory, and the math of LET is not quite the same as that
of SR, though they do make the same testable predictions,
as mentioned. LET and SR are both physical theories,
contrary to your oft-repeated mumbo-jumbo. The problem
with LET is that its postulated ether frame loses all
uniqueness. This is obvious once you accept that their
predictions are the same, because it's certainly a
prediction of SR. I would probably agree that LET is
a special case of SR, in that it can be explained by
an ad hoc breaking of the symmetry of SR, as I tried to
point out in a posting to Arlin Jean yesterday.
> (Some day we will be able to read the FAQ?)
---Tim Shuba---
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <8h1efo$n7a$1...@crib.corepower.com>
> nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban) wrote:
>
> >In <stephenwells-3...@mac008.joh.cam.ac.uk>,
> >stephe...@deathtospam.hotmail.com (Stephen) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3932a850.2020483@news>,
> >> ret...@home.com wrote:
> >
> >>
>
> Nathan Urban wrote:
> >One might say that as theories, they're not equal but are
> > isomorphic, in the sense that they have different postulates
> > but make the same testable predictions...
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> Well thank you, Nathan, for at least trying a little to rectify this
> mistatement of Wells. These two theories, as presented today,
> are identical, in their math predictions. And they do relate, as
> I present them. SR is the correct math, and the correct ether
> theory is the correct physics that goes with the correct math.
There is no such thing as a CORRECT theory in physics! Quit trying to turn
physics into your personal religion (we all know that that's what you've
done for yourself). Physical theories are "free creations" of the human
mind, and are not, however our naive intuition may prefer to the contrary,
uniquely determined by the external realm perceived by our senses and
rationalized by our cognitive processes. These "free creation" are
constrained only by empirical tests but are otherwise arbitrary.
All a theory has to be to be "physical" is to make a physically testable
prediction. All a theory has to be to be "correct" is to have a Supreme
Being tell us it is. Failing that, we humans can only validate or refute
theories. (If you'd read some elementary philosophy of physics you'd know
this stuff, O'Barr.) We never prove theories to be correct. Dogmatism. Of
course, we could settle for O'Barr to be our Supreme Being to reveal
absolute truth to us, but not for me.
SR kinematics makes lots of physical predictions. It is a physical theory.
SR dynamics makes lots more physical predictions. It is a physical theory.
(And it makes these predictions based on fundamental interactions of
particles.) GR makes physical predictions. It is a physical theory. It
makes predictions based on the interactions of fundamental particles. And
GR is a fully dynamical theory, fixing the problem of the static
gravitational "field" that Newton had left it. To be fair to Newton, the
modern field theories of physics were a couple hundred years later than his
time.
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
> The problem with LET is that its postulated ether frame loses all
> uniqueness. This is obvious once you accept that their predictions
> are the same, because it's certainly a prediction of SR.
It is not a problem. It becomes a problem only if you start with
wrong, positivistic methodology - that theories should be based on
observation, instead of making predictions about them.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>, http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer
Gerry Quinn
>In article <3932a850.2020483@news>, ret...@home.com wrote:
>
>> Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (1903) was actually a special case
>> solution of Special Relativity (1905).
>
>different postulates, and neither is a special case of the other or
>derivable from the other.
>
I would say SR is derivable from LET (assuming it is extended to all
forces) - it is a set of relationships among the 'proper' or 'local'
magnitudes of LET.
LET's absolute magnitudes, however, do not exist in SR.
- Gerry Quinn
GLOBARR
> In <8h1efo$n7a$1...@crib.corepower.com>
> nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban) wrote:
>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .
> Well thank you, Nathan, for at least trying a little to
> rectify this mistatement of Wells. These two theories, as
> presented today, are identical, in their math predictions.
> And they do relate, as I present them. SR is the correct
> math, and the correct ether theory is the correct physics
> that goes with the correct math.
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as a CORRECT theory in physics! Quit
trying to turn physics into your personal religion (we all know
that that's what you've done for yourself). Physical theories
are "free creations" of the human mind, and are not, however
our naive intuition may prefer to the contrary, uniquely
determined by the external realm perceived by our senses and
rationalized by our cognitive processes. These "free creation"
are constrained only by empirical tests but are otherwise
arbitrary.
O'Barr comments:
Well, thank goodness you do realize that there are
constraints! Our scientific theories often have many
constraints. They can have many constraints because there are
almost an endless number of empirical tests that can be done!
And if enough constraints can be found, then the options before
us do become limited, and although what you say have a degree
of truth to it, you vastly overate your position!
Reany wrote:
All a theory has to be to be "physical" is to make a physically
testable prediction.
O'Barr comments:
Since all you have is a math theory, then I can see why you
would like to so define things. But most all theories in
physics, whether they be math theories or not, deal with
physical things and what they do. So this obviously is not
what makes a theory a math theory.
Let us look back in history. Let us take one group of
people who kept detail records of tides along their shore line,
and found that they could put together some math that would
most perfectly predict their tides. This was good science! It
was useful to them. It was an important aid to their shipping.
Now let us find another group of people who also kept
records along their shore, and not only did they see regularity
to their tides, they observed a `physical' connection to the
position of the moon with respect to their tides.
Now you tell me, what was the difference between these two
theories of these two groups of people? Who had the better
science? Who had the stronger theory? Which group of people
were going to see the most advancements? One of these groups
had only math! The math could even be more exact or more
perfect than what the other group had. It could be the most
`useful.' But the group that was able to see a physical
connection to another physical object would be more likely to
go to other areas of the globe, and to know the tide
relationships there faster than the other group. It would be
the most likely to find out that the sun was also involved.
The group that made the correct physical connection would
always have certain advantages over the other. And this cannot
be denied! There are important differences between theories,
depending on their base: If a theory is based only on math,
only on a math equation that works, it is different that a
theory that is based on correct physical relationships.
Reany wrote:
All a theory has to be to be "correct" is to have a Supreme
Being tell us it is.
O'Barr comments:
I'm sure this would work! Moses validated this approach!
Reany wrote:
Failing that, we humans can only validate or refute theories.
O'Barr comments:
Sounds good to me!!!!!
Reany wrote:
(If you'd read some elementary philosophy of physics you'd know
this stuff, O'Barr.) We never prove theories to be correct.
O'Barr comments:
I am sure that any person can talk themselves into almost
anything, just as it appears that you have done to yourself
here. You appear to take the attitude that since no human can
ever know everything, then he can of course not ever know
anything. You are actually being just as dogmatic, as you are
accusing me of being dogmatic. You are being dogmatic that
there is never a time we can know anything for sure, just as
you think I am being dogmatic for thinking (or so you think
that I am thinking) that we can sometimes be sure of what
things are. To me, it is an unimportant argument. The more
important thing is whether we know enough to be able to
reasonable assume something, and to know that that is what we
have done! This is what is sufficient to be a reasonable and
an acceptable scientist!
However unsure we are of any one thing, we do have the power
to know things sufficient to trust our very lives to what we
know, as we do every time we get on an airplane, or take
certain medicines. You are the one that needs to `reduce' your
dogmatism!!!!!!! I would never say for you to throw it away!
But you do need to keep it in proper balance!
Reany wrote:
... Of course, we could settle for O'Barr to be our Supreme
Being to reveal absolute truth to us, but not for me.
O'Barr comments:
Well, if this is your real position, then I can tell you
still have a little bit of wisdom. There really might be hope
for you after all. (No one would want to believe the one who is
least on this net.)
Reany wrote:
SR kinematics makes lots of physical predictions. It is a
physical theory.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry. SR does make many physical predictions, but all of
its physical predictions are based only on SR math. SR cannot
tell us what really physically happens to produce the results
that it predicts. You cannot even tell us whether a clock
really slows down or not. All you can really say is what will
be measured if you arrange your tools in one particular way.
That is all you can do. You cannot really physical explain
anything!
Reany wrote:
SR dynamics makes lots more physical predictions. It is a
physical theory.
O'Barr comments:
Yes! Yes! Yes!!! You sure do predict correct physical
results, as would be measured by tools arranged as you specify.
But it is all again based only on SR math! There is no
physical base to your math, and thus it is only a math theory,
with no power to physically explain any of these physical
predictions!
Reany wrote:
(And it makes these predictions based on fundamental
interactions of particles.)
O'Barr comments:
Fundamental physical interactions? The last time I checked
all these things out, there was only `fundamental' math
assumptions. I think you just adopter the ether approach. Did
you do this on purpose????
Reany wrote:
GR makes physical predictions. It is a physical theory.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry. GR does make many physical predictions, but all of
its physical predictions are based only on GR math. Since SR
is GR, in that part of space where SR applies, then everything
that is true about SR is also true about GR, in that area.
Therefore, GR itself has to be only math (at least where SR
applies), and thus your statement stands in total disarray!
Reany wrote:
It makes predictions based on the interactions of fundamental
particles.
O'Barr comments:
Say such things as much as you want, Reany, it will not make
it correct. GR, just as SR, is not based on any physical
relationship at all. You cannot tell us the material base to
spacetime continuums, you cannot tell us what really physically
happens. All you can tell us is what is measured. And you
tell us all these things just by math.
Reany wrote:
And GR is a fully dynamical theory, fixing the problem of the
static gravitational "field" that Newton had left it. To be
fair to Newton, the modern field theories of physics were a
couple hundred years later than his time.
O'Barr comments:
I am glad that you want to be fair about these things. To
be fair, then why do you not see what Newton saw, that he knew
that he had only a math theory, and he therefore knew that a
better theory was needed. And he knew all this even though his
theory, for his day, was most perfect. Even though his theory
was perfect for his day, still, he was smart enough to know
differently, and he knew differently for reasons that you today
cannot even admit to being real. Somehow, we have sure gone
backwards in our ability to understand our reality!
You, today, are faced with what Newton was faced with, and
Newton knew what was correct. But you do not! You refuse to
realize what Newton was willing to realize. And you stink!
Newton can be admired! You SR experts stink, in your inability
to do what Newton did! You refuse to see that there is a
problem with having just a math theory, as Newton saw with his
theory. Shame on you all!
The day is fast coming when we will all see that the
greatest lie that ever occurred was when SR experts said that
there could not be an absolute reference frame. The SR
experts, even today, in your very FAQ, have an object of shame!
It is pure prejudice. It is not thoughtful, nor complete, nor
scientific. It is not fair, or honest! And you need to
change, and become more scientific. And none of this is going
to go away! Your day has ended! And I hope that you do not
all sink along with your sick theory! It is time for you to
step back and see what is going on! There is need for a
change, and no one is going to stop it!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
(Some day we will be able to read the FAQ?)
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <3934FB9B...@xroads.com>
> Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
> > In <8h1efo$n7a$1...@crib.corepower.com>
> > nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban) wrote:
> Reany wrote:
[snip]
>
> SR kinematics makes lots of physical predictions. It is a
> physical theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Sorry. SR does make many physical predictions, but all of
> its physical predictions are based only on SR math.
Irrelevant, even if true, but not even true.
> SR cannot
> tell us what really physically happens to produce the results
> that it predicts.
Of course, no physical theory can say what's "really" happening.
Physical theory can tell you what is happening only up to the model it
uses. You then supply a dash of faith to connect the model to so-called
"reality." That the process works well enough for practicality doesn't
make it TRUE. And the fact that a "law" has worked for a thousand years
doesn't mean it has to work tomorrow. Or did God put you in charge
making sure of that too?
> You cannot even tell us whether a clock
> really slows down or not.
The twins (or clock) comparison given in 1905 by Einstein did answer
that. I don't see any meaning in comparing fly-by clock readings either.
But it is meaningful for two identical synchronized clocks to startoff
together and follow their own world lines and come back together and
then compare their clock time intervals. No problem there!
> All you can really say is what will
> be measured if you arrange your tools in one particular way.
> That is all you can do. You cannot really physical explain
> anything!
I cannot explain anything with the certainty of an all-knowing being or
a self-deluded human.
> Reany wrote:
> SR dynamics makes lots more physical predictions. It is a
> physical theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes! Yes! Yes!!! You sure do predict correct physical
> results, as would be measured by tools arranged as you specify.
> But it is all again based only on SR math! There is no
> physical base to your math, and thus it is only a math theory,
> with no power to physically explain any of these physical
> predictions!
Why don't you take a vacation and read Classical Electrodynamics, by
Jackson, or Electrodynamics and Classical Theory of Fields and
Particles, by A.O.Barut.
> Reany wrote:
> (And it makes these predictions based on fundamental
> interactions of particles.)
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Fundamental physical interactions? The last time I checked
> all these things out, there was only `fundamental' math
> assumptions. I think you just adopter the ether approach. Did
> you do this on purpose????
Just what are these alleged sources of yours that have made you such a
fanatic?
> Reany wrote:
> GR makes physical predictions. It is a physical theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Sorry. GR does make many physical predictions, but all of
> its physical predictions are based only on GR math. Since SR
> is GR, in that part of space where SR applies, then everything
> that is true about SR is also true about GR, in that area.
> Therefore, GR itself has to be only math (at least where SR
> applies), and thus your statement stands in total disarray!
>
> Reany wrote:
> It makes predictions based on the interactions of fundamental
> particles.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Say such things as much as you want, Reany, it will not make
> it correct. GR, just as SR, is not based on any physical
> relationship at all. You cannot tell us the material base to
> spacetime continuums,
What's the material base to your ether?
> you cannot tell us what really physically
> happens. All you can tell us is what is measured. And you
> tell us all these things just by math.
Oh how I do love these soliloquies of yours. In Einstein's 1916 paper
"The Foundation of the General theory of Relativity" (reprinted in
English in The Principle of Relativity, Dover, p160) we find:
To arrive at Newton's theory as a first approximation we had to
calculate only one component, g_{44}, of the ten g_{\mu\nu} of the
gravitational field, since this component alone enters into the first
approximation, (67) of the equation for the motion of the MATERIAL POINT
in the gravitational field. *****
Gee whiz, a dynamical mathematical theory that explains observable
motion as the result of the interaction of particles via an intermediate
field under the control of covariant physical laws. What more than that
do you demand of a physical theory?
> Somehow, we have sure gone
> backwards in our ability to understand our reality!
Sometime between the days of heady arrogance of believing that we can
know reality with certainty and the humble opinion of philosophers
today, something magnificent happened! It was called epistemology!
> The day is fast coming when we will all see that the
> greatest lie that ever occurred was when SR experts said that
> there could not be an absolute reference frame.
Can you say amen, brother?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this lie was told. Why do you
rank it as "greatest lie that ever occurred"? What's so damn important
about it?
Patrick
GLOBARR
Tim Shuba <sh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Gerald L O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> SR is the correct math, and the correct ether theory
> is the correct physics that goes with the correct math.
> And thus these two theories are in reality the same theory!
> Either one can be used to obtain the other. You can start
> with the correct physics, and from it, get the correct math!
> You can start with the correct math, and figure out the
> correct physics.
Tim Shuba wrote:
Not really. The math is an integral part of a physical
theory, and the math of LET is not quite the same as that
of SR, though they do make the same testable predictions,
as mentioned. LET and SR are both physical theories,
contrary to your oft-repeated mumbo-jumbo. The problem
with LET is that its postulated ether frame loses all
uniqueness. This is obvious once you accept that their
predictions are the same, because it's certainly a
prediction of SR. I would probably agree that LET is
a special case of SR, in that it can be explained by
an ad hoc breaking of the symmetry of SR, as I tried to
point out in a posting to Arlin Jean yesterday.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
It makes me feel good to hear you say some of these things.
The math in the ether is an integral part of the physical ether
theory. That is how you handle physical theories. You verify,
with the math, that you can confirm the physical assumptions.
And you are correct, the ether has math relationships that do
not exist in SR. In the ether, the ether math can handle
velocities faster than c, even near infinite velocities if it
were ever necessary. SR math cannot do these things! The fact
that in terms of measurements, we lose the uniqueness of the
ether frame, is of no consequence. We do not lose the
uniqueness of the ether frame in terms of the original theory.
We do not lose the uniqueness of the ether frame in terms of
the physics. All we do is exactly what is required by the
ether theory itself, and no more or no less. This fact
strengthens the theory. It does not lessen it! Surely you
must know all this!!!!~!!
And of course in the area of symmetry, this is where the
ether really shines, in comparison with SR. In the ether,
there is never any `breaks' in the symmetry, which constantly
occurs in SR. The symmetry in the ether is perfect, exactly
what we see and no more!!!!!!
And what did Arlin Jean have to say yesterday? She usually
set things correct!!!!!! She does not hesitate to call SR
experts wrong, because they are wrong! The ether approach is
far superior to SR, and we now all know it!!!!
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
Ref: <3934FB9B...@xroads.com>
<8h1efo$n7a$1...@crib.corepower.com>
[snip]
Patrick Reany wrote: . . .
> SR kinematics makes lots of physical predictions. It is a
> physical theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Sorry. SR does make many physical predictions, but all of
> its physical predictions are based only on SR math.
Patrick Reany wrote:
Irrelevant, even if true, but not even true.
O'Barr comments:
Sure it's true! If it weren't true, you would have
explained it!
O'Barr wrote:
> SR cannot tell us what really physically happens
> to produce the results that it predicts.
Patrick Reany wrote:
Of course, no physical theory can say what's "really"
happening. . . .
O'Barr comments:
Don't be stupid. This is the power of the kinetic theory of
gases, in that the theory can tell us what is really happening,
even though the math says it is all continuous, etc.
This is the power of the ether, in that it can and does tell
us exactly what is physically happening, even though the math
tells us that we measure these impossible things!
Patrick Reany wrote:
Physical theory can tell you what is happening only up to the
model it uses.
O'Barr comments:
This is certainly correct. And the model being used by the
ether is one step beyond SR. And so it is superior to SR! No
one says that the ether theory takes you all the way! We must
wait for the at theory to do this!
Patrick Reany wrote:
You then supply a dash of faith to connect the model to so-
called "reality."
O'Barr comments:
We do not! We only connect reality up to the model being
modeled. If the model produces correct results, we have
reasons to assume some correctness to the model. We of course
cannot go beyond the model! But if we see that we have a
correct model, it will certainly be an aid to us to extend the
model. SR has no physical model from which we can hope to
make any extensions!
Patrick Reany wrote:
That the process works well enough for practicality doesn't
make it TRUE. And the fact that a "law" has worked for a
thousand years doesn't mean it has to work tomorrow. Or did
God put you in charge making sure of that too?
O'Barr comments:
If the process works, it might be true! And you do not
ignore it, nor say that it is impossible, nor do you run away
from it!
O'Barr wrote (about what SR cannot tell us):
> You cannot even tell us whether a clock
> really slows down or not.
Reany wrote:
The twins (or clock) comparison given in 1905 by Einstein did
answer that. I don't see any meaning in comparing fly-by clock
readings either. But it is meaningful for two identical
synchronized clocks to start off together and follow their own
world lines and come back together and then compare their
clock time intervals. No problem there!
O'Barr comments:
There are no math problems that I know of in SR, and this
certainly includes the twin paradox. But the `explanations'
provided by SR experts are sick! As a point of fact, your math
cannot say that the clocks do not physically slow down. You
lie if you say these things. And yet some of you SR experts
will die before you will admit to this! These lies are going
to end! You will no longer be allowed to right out and lie
about SR math! You do not understand your own math, and you
make me sick! Your SR math does not require one single person
to believe in 4-D spacetime continuums. How could anything
correct, force you to believe in something that is physically
impossible? To me, you are all sick. You are not scientists.
You believe in a religion, and you will not be moved!
O'Barr wrote:
> All you can really say is what will be measured
> if you arrange your tools in one particular way. That is all
> you can do. You cannot really physical explain anything!
Reany wrote:
I cannot explain anything with the certainty of an all-knowing
being or a self-deluded human.
O'Barr comments:
As I said, you have some hope!
> Reany wrote:
> SR dynamics makes lots more physical predictions. It is a
> physical theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> . . . Yes!!! You sure do predict correct physical
> results, as would be measured by tools arranged as you
> specify. But it is all again based only on SR math! There
> is no physical base to your math, and thus it is only a math
> theory, with no power to physically explain any of these
> physical predictions!
Reany wrote:
Why don't you take a vacation and read Classical
Electrodynamics, by Jackson, or Electrodynamics and Classical
Theory of Fields and Particles, by A. O. Barut.
> Reany wrote:
> (And it makes these predictions based on fundamental
> interactions of particles.)
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Fundamental physical interactions? The last time I
> checked all these things out, there was only `fundamental'
> math assumptions. I think you just adopter the ether
> approach. Did you do this on purpose????
Reany wrote:
Just what are these alleged sources of yours that have made
you such a fanatic?
O'Barr comments:
What do you think is fanatic? You can't tell the difference
between math and physics?
> Reany wrote:
> GR makes physical predictions. It is a physical theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Sorry. GR does make many physical predictions, but all of
> its physical predictions are based only on GR math. Since
> SR is GR, in that part of space where SR applies, then
> everything
> that is true about SR is also true about GR, in that area.
> Therefore, GR itself has to be only math (at least where SR
> applies), and thus your statement stands in total disarray!
>
> Reany wrote:
> It makes predictions based on the interactions of fundamental
> particles.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Say such things as much as you want, Reany, it will not make
> it correct. GR, just as SR, is not based on any physical
> relationship at all. You cannot tell us the material base to
> spacetime continuums,
Reany wrote:
What's the material base to your ether?
O'Barr comments:
In the ether theory, the ether itself forms the physical
base.
O'Barr wrote about what SR cannot do:
> you cannot tell us what really physically
> happens. All you can tell us is what is measured. And you
> tell us all these things just by math.
Reany wrote:
Oh how I do love these soliloquies of yours. In Einstein's
1916 paper "The Foundation of the General theory of Relativity"
(reprinted in English in The Principle of Relativity, Dover,
p160) we find:
To arrive at Newton's theory as a first approximation we had to
calculate only one component, g_{44}, of the ten g_{\mu\nu} of
the gravitational field, since this component alone enters into
the first approximation, (67) of the equation for the motion of
the MATERIAL POINT in the gravitational field. *****
Gee whiz, a dynamical mathematical theory that explains
observable motion as the result of the interaction of particles
via an intermediate field under the control of covariant
physical laws. What more than that do you demand of a physical
theory?
O'Barr comments:
What I demand is a reader that knows that math theories,
such as GR and Newton's law of gravity, uses mass, even the
mass of such large bodies as the earth, and gives us physical
results. The use of such physical items do not affect the base
of the theory. GR is not `derived' by first stating a physical
base, and then finding the math that fits the physical base.
It is based upon math principles that have been pre-assumed!
O'Barr wrote:
> Somehow, we have sure gone backwards
> in our ability to understand our reality!
Reany wrote:
Sometime between the days of heady arrogance of believing that
we can know reality with certainty and the humble opinion of
philosophers today, something magnificent happened! It was
called epistemology!
O'Barr comments:
Somewhere between the humble man of faith, Lorentz, and the
present know-nothing SR experts, we have lost faith in what man
can do. And this needs to change!
O'Barr wrote:
> The day is fast coming when we will all see that the
> greatest lie that ever occurred was when SR experts said that
> there could not be an absolute reference frame.
Reany wrote:
Can you say amen, brother?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this lie was
told. Why do you rank it as "greatest lie that ever occurred"?
What's so damn important about it?
O'Barr comments:
This lie is still being told. Just read the FAQ!!!! You
will find SR presented as if it had evidence. You will find SR
presented as if it were scientific to accept SR with no other
consideration. You will find SR presented as if it alone
accounted for the correct predictions. To me, you have lived
this lie for so long that you will not even think about what
you have done, both to yourselves, and to all thinking people
who have depended on you being honest!
What is important about this lie? It keeps you from
accepting the at theory! And this is going to end! I am going
to see that it is going to end! You have no right to lie, and
you have no right to ignore the impossible thinking that SR
experts have imposed upon our science! There are no 4-D
spacetime continuums, there are no back-in-time events, and
thus the simple ether theory is superior!
sh...@my-deja.com
> sh...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > The problem with LET is that its postulated ether frame loses all
> > uniqueness. This is obvious once you accept that their predictions
> > are the same, because it's certainly a prediction of SR.
>
> It is not a problem. It becomes a problem only if you start with
> wrong, positivistic methodology - that theories should be based on
> observation, instead of making predictions about them.
Both SR and LET make the *same* predictions, and they're both
based on observation, so I don't get the point. I seem to recall
you saying that before the experimental triumph of QM over Bell's
theorem, you would have chosen SR hands down over LET. I don't
see at all why you think that LET supports faster-than-light
travel (travel of what??). What happens to the coordinate
transformations of LET? The ones I know blow up for v greater
than c. You could add to LET by using terms of c/v instead of
v/c, or something, but the same could be done to SR.
sh...@my-deja.com
> In the ether, the ether math can handle
> velocities faster than c, even near infinite velocities if it
> were ever necessary. SR math cannot do these things!
Aha, that's a claim that deserves some backing. How, exactly,
does the "ether math" handle a particle with a velocity of
2c with respect to the ether frame? Specifically, what
is the measured velocity of this particle for an observer
moving at speed (wrt the ether, of course) c/2 in the
same direction as the particle? I believe these numbers
are simple enough so I can gain an understanding of how
"ether math" works, and why "SR math" fails. Thanks
in advance for showing me this basic calculation.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> The problem with LET is that its postulated ether frame loses all
>>> uniqueness. This is obvious once you accept that their predictions
>>> are the same, because it's certainly a prediction of SR.
>>
>> It is not a problem. It becomes a problem only if you start with
>> wrong, positivistic methodology - that theories should be based on
>> observation, instead of making predictions about them.
>
> Both SR and LET make the *same* predictions, and they're both
> based on observation, so I don't get the point.
They are both not "based" on observation. They are both theories in
agreement with observation - that's a difference. They above contain
unproven and unprovable metaphysical assumptions of different type.
> I seem to recall you saying that before the experimental triumph of
> QM over Bell's theorem, you would have chosen SR hands down over
> LET.
Because it predicts Bell's inequality, but LET not.
> I don't see at all why you think that LET supports faster-than-light
> travel (travel of what??).
That's not the point - it doesn't forbid it. EPR-realistic causal SR
forbids it, EPR-realistic causal LET not.
> What happens to the coordinate transformations of LET?
Nothing. They transform into each other really different physical
situations which cannot be distinguished by observation alone.
> The ones I know blow up for v greater than c.
So what? In the Lorentz transformations we have v<c. Nothing
changes.
The difference is causality. The LET notion of causality is related
with absolute time and not Lorentz-covariant. Einstein causality is
Lorentz-covariant.
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <3936CA53...@xroads.com>
> Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
> O'Barr wrote:
> > SR cannot tell us what really physically happens
> > to produce the results that it predicts.
>
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> Of course, no physical theory can say what's "really"
> happening. . . .
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Don't be stupid. This is the power of the kinetic theory of
> gases, in that the theory can tell us what is really happening,
Prove it!
even though the math says it is all continuous, etc.
> This is the power of the ether, in that it can and does tell
> us exactly what is physically happening, even though the math
> tells us that we measure these impossible things!
Are you God?
>
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> Physical theory can tell you what is happening only up to the
> model it uses.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> This is certainly correct. And the model being used by the
> ether is one step beyond SR.
It's one step beyond, all right!
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> You then supply a dash of faith to connect the model to so-
> called "reality."
>
> O'Barr comments:
> We do not! We only connect reality up to the model being
> modeled.
O'Barr, I can't understand why people say you'd be no fun at a dinner
party?
> If the model produces correct results, we have
> reasons to assume some correctness to the model.
No! We have reason to assume the "utility" of the model/theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> There are no math problems that I know of in SR, and this
> certainly includes the twin paradox. But the `explanations'
> provided by SR experts are sick!
I thought you said that SR has NO explanations at all! And that SR can't
do whatever that double negative of yours says below.
> As a point of fact, your math
> cannot say that the clocks do not physically slow down. You
> lie if you say these things.
Please, O'Barr: You're hard enough to understand when you're not using
double negatives.
Fine. I'll tell the Big "Lie" of SR: I choose a simple example with all
motion on a single line. Let two mobile reference frames, I and N, start
off together at rest relative to each other, having origins together,
and having their onboard clocks synchronized between them. Let I be in
and continue in Inertial motion. Let N go off in Noninertial motion,
sometime later rejoining I and putting origins together again. Let them
compare their elapsed time of their clocks at the origins of their
reference frames. N's onboard clock at his origin will read a time
interval less than the time interval read by I's onboard clock at his
origin. The math of SR makes a definite prediction.
> And yet some of you SR experts
> will die before you will admit to this!
What's worse, we might die of old age before this thread is over!
> These lies are going
> to end! You will no longer be allowed to right out and lie
> about SR math! You do not understand your own math, and you
> make me sick!
Take two M&M's and email us in the morning.
> Your SR math does not require one single person
> to believe in 4-D spacetime continuums.
Theoretical physics builds models. You don't have to "believe" in the
model to effectively use it.
> How could anything
> correct, force you to believe in something that is physically
> impossible? To me, you are all sick. You are not scientists.
> You believe in a religion, and you will not be moved!
Are you sure you're getting enough oxygen where you are?
>
> Reany wrote:
> Just what are these alleged sources of yours that have made
> you such a fanatic?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> What do you think is fanatic?
Do you ever read your own posts for the rhetoric/paranoia of your
sentences and paragraphs?
> You can't tell the difference
> between math and physics?
Answer the damn question, O'Barr. What are these "sources" of yours? You
haven't been having epiphanies again, have you? Was it an archangel this
time? Which one? Michael or Gabriel?
>
> > Reany wrote:
> > It makes predictions based on the interactions of fundamental
> > particles.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > Say such things as much as you want, Reany, it will not make
> > it correct. GR, just as SR, is not based on any physical
> > relationship at all. You cannot tell us the material base to
> > spacetime continuums,
>
> Reany wrote:
> What's the material base to your ether?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> In the ether theory, the ether itself forms the physical
> base.
I asked what the "material base" of your ether is. Quit twisting my
questions.
>
> Gee whiz, a dynamical mathematical theory that explains
> observable motion as the result of the interaction of particles
> via an intermediate field under the control of covariant
> physical laws. What more than that do you demand of a physical
> theory?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> What I demand is a reader that knows that math theories,
> such as GR and Newton's law of gravity, uses mass, even the
> mass of such large bodies as the earth, and gives us physical
> results.
I didn't ask you what you demand of the reader. I asked you what you
demand of a physical theory. Answer the questions you're asked.
> The use of such physical items do not affect the base
> of the theory. GR is not `derived' by first stating a physical
> base, and then finding the math that fits the physical base.
> It is based upon math principles that have been pre-assumed!
In other words, any "physical theory" that doesn't start with your ether
is not a physical theory at all!. What's important of a physical theory
is where it takes us in organizing various kinds of observations and
predicting physicality.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Somewhere between the humble man of faith, Lorentz, and the
> present know-nothing SR experts, we have lost faith in what man
> can do. And this needs to change!
Let's build an ether tower right up to Heaven!
> Let's assume for the sake of argument that this lie was
> told. Why do you rank it as "greatest lie that ever occurred"?
> What's so damn important about it?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> This lie is still being told. Just read the FAQ!!!! You
> will find SR presented as if it had evidence. You will find SR
> presented as if it were scientific to accept SR with no other
> consideration. You will find SR presented as if it alone
> accounted for the correct predictions. To me, you have lived
> this lie for so long that you will not even think about what
> you have done, both to yourselves, and to all thinking people
> who have depended on you being honest!
Who the hell do you think you are, O'Barr? John the Baptist of the Ether
Theory?
>
> What is important about this lie? It keeps you from
> accepting the at theory!
What's so cosmically important about that?
> And this is going to end! I am going
> to see that it is going to end! You have no right to lie, and
> you have no right to ignore the impossible thinking that SR
> experts have imposed upon our science!
I have argued a few times with "SR experts" on this newsgroup about the
misrepresentation of Einstein's relativity as requiring a "realist"
interpretation. About calling Newtonian physics "nonrelativistic" though
it uses the Galilean transformations and never uses absolute velocities.
I have chided them occasionally about improper wording of the Light
Principle. In fact, your statement of the Light Principle on your
website is probably taken directly from me, because it was my mantra
many years ago when I was more active on this newsgroup (starting in
'94/5 as I recall). But you take the cake for misrepresenting SR and GR.
I still think that you don't really understand it, which is the minimum
requirement for contesting it so. There's a whole lot more to SR than
just The Principle of (SR) Relativity and the Light Principle, which
together just get the subject started by setting down SR kinematics (as
well as telling us what a "physical law" is in this discipline). You
either just don't understand this or you intentionally ignore it. And by
doing so, you grossly misrepresent it. But to you, SR with a "realist"
interpretation is "physically" impossible, and with an
"instrumentalist-operationalist" intepretation (which is my
interpretation) is just "math."
> There are no 4-D
> spacetime continuums, there are no back-in-time events, and
> thus the simple ether theory is superior!
As far as we know there are no point particles in Nature, yet that
doesn't stop us from using the concept to MODEL mass particles for
certain purposes, including the kinetic theory of gases.
How do you know that there are no 4-D spacetime continuums? (And why are
you so obsessed by it?) I've told before: prove it!
(The physicist doesn't have to prove that 4-D spacetime continuums
exists, because all physicists ever do is to use the concept in the
modeling process. The models use it, but Reality? Who knows? It doesn't
really matter! All the theory is required to do is to connect to
physicality -- the set of all possible observable events.)
Patrick
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
Ref: <3936CA53...@xroads.com>
<20000601232913...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (O'Barr) wrote:
> > SR cannot tell us what really physically happens
> > to produce the results that it predicts.
>
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> Of course, no physical theory can say what's "really"
> happening. . . .
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Don't be stupid. This is the power of the kinetic theory
> of gases, in that the theory can tell us what is really
> happening, even though the math says it is all continuous,
> etc.
Reany wrote:
Prove it!
O'Barr comments:
There is nothing to prove! Any physicist knows this. From
the physical assumptions, you can obtain the math, PV=nRT. The
pressure, P, is taken mathematically to be a time continuous
function. But from the physical assumptions of the theory, we
know that this is not true, especially as the density becomes
very small, etc. The physical is in control, not the math!
O'Barr wrote:
> This is the power of the ether, in that it can and does
> tell us exactly what is physically happening, even though the
> math tells us that we measure these impossible things!
Reany wrote:
Are you God?
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> Physical theory can tell you what is happening only up to the
> model it uses.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> This is certainly correct. And the model being used by
> the ether is one step beyond SR.
Reany wrote:
It's one step beyond, all right!
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> You then supply a dash of faith to connect the model to so-
> called "reality."
>
> O'Barr comments:
> We do not! We only connect reality up to the model being
> modeled.
Reany wrote:
O'Barr, I can't understand why people say you'd be no fun at a
dinner party?
O'Barr wrote:
> If the model produces correct results, we have
> reasons to assume some correctness to the model.
Reany wrote:
No! We have reason to assume the "utility" of the model/theory.
O'Barr comments:
Fine with me!
O'Barr wrote:
> There are no math problems that I know of in SR, and this
> certainly includes the twin paradox. But the `explanations'
> provided by SR experts are sick!
Reany wrote:
I thought you said that SR has NO explanations at all! And
that SR can't do whatever that double negative of yours says
below.
O'Barr comments:
Because SR is only math, it has, by theory, no power to
provide physical explanations. This does not stop the SR
experts from offering explanations by the gallons!!!! And they
are free to offer all explanations they care to, and just as
long as their explanations do not change the math, then they
can get away with their explanations. It does not make any of
their explanations correct!
O'Barr wrote:
> As a point of fact, your math cannot say
> that the clocks do not physically slow down.
> You lie if you say these things.
Reany wrote:
Please, O'Barr: You're hard enough to understand when
you're not using double negatives.
Fine. I'll tell the Big "Lie" of SR: I choose a simple
example with all motion on a single line. Let two mobile
reference frames, I and N, start off together at rest relative
to each other, having origins together, and having their
onboard clocks synchronized between them. Let I be in and
continue in Inertial motion. Let N go off in Noninertial
motion, sometime later rejoining I and putting origins together
again. Let them compare their elapsed time of their clocks at
the origins of their reference frames. N's onboard clock at
his origin will read a time interval less than the time
interval read by I's onboard clock at his origin. The math of
SR makes a definite prediction.
O'Barr comments:
And the math prediction is correct, N's clock will show less
time than I's clock. And in SR, by theory, this is all you
have the right to say! You can not, by theory, say that N's
clock did not physically change its rate. You cannot say what
this clock physically did! Your theory does not say what
individual clocks physically do. Obviously it had to have done
something, but your math is multifunctional at this point, and
more than one thing could have happened. Therefore, you cannot
say what really physically happens!
O'Barr wrote:
> And yet some of you SR experts
> will die before you will admit to this!
Reany wrote:
What's worse, we might die of old age before this thread is
over!
O'Barr comments:
You could help. Just convert now!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
> These lies are going to end! You will no longer
> be allowed to right out and lie about SR math!
> You do not understand your own math, and you make me sick!
Reany wrote:
Take two M&M's and email us in the morning.
O'Barr wrote:
> Your SR math does not require one single person
> to believe in 4-D spacetime continuums.
Reany wrote:
Theoretical physics builds models. You don't have to "believe"
in the model to effectively use it.
O'Barr comments:
And so? What do you want? A merit badge?
O'Barr wrote:
> How could anything correct, force you
> to believe in something that is physically impossible?
> To me, you are all sick. You are not scientists.
> You believe in a religion, and you will not be moved!
Reany wrote:
Are you sure you're getting enough oxygen where you are?
> Reany wrote:
> Just what are these alleged sources of yours that have made
> you such a fanatic?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> What do you think is fanatic?
Reany wrote:
Do you ever read your own posts for the rhetoric/paranoia of
your sentences and paragraphs?
O'Barr wrote:
> You can't tell the difference between math and physics?
Reany wrote:
Answer the damn question, O'Barr. What are these "sources" of
yours? You haven't been having epiphanies again, have you? Was
it an archangel this time? Which one? Michael or Gabriel?
O'Barr comments:
My goodness, Pat! I think you know more angels than I do!
> > Reany wrote:
> > It makes predictions based on the interactions of
> > fundamental particles.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > Say such things as much as you want, Reany, it will not
> > make it correct. GR, just as SR, is not based on any
> > physical relationship at all. You cannot tell us the
> > material base to spacetime continuums,
>
> Reany wrote:
> What's the material base to your ether?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> In the ether theory, the ether itself forms the physical
> base.
Reany wrote:
I asked what the "material base" of your ether is. Quit
twisting my questions.
O'Barr comments:
One would have to study the at theory to understand the
ether in any mechanical sense. The ether is composed of
particles. These particles do have mass. There are many
particles in the ether that have random motions. But none of
these details are important at this point! Have you read the
at theory? Have you tested any of its mechanics on your
computer? What do you think of it?
Reany wrote:
> Gee whiz, a dynamical mathematical theory that explains
> observable motion as the result of the interaction of
> particles via an intermediate field under the control of
> covariant physical laws. What more than that do you demand
> of a physical theory?
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> What I demand is a reader that knows that math theories,
> such as GR and Newton's law of gravity, uses mass, even the
> mass of such large bodies as the earth, and gives us physical
> results.
Reany wrote:
I didn't ask you what you demand of the reader. I asked you
what you demand of a physical theory. Answer the questions
you're asked.
O'Barr wrote:
> The use of such physical items do not affect the base
> of the theory. GR is not `derived' by first stating a
> physical base, and then finding the math that fits the
> physical base. It is based upon math principles that
> have been pre-assumed!
Reany wrote:
In other words, any "physical theory" that doesn't start with
your ether is not a physical theory at all!. What's important
of a physical theory is where it takes us in organizing various
kinds of observations and predicting physicality.
> O'Barr wrote:
> Somewhere between the humble man of faith, Lorentz, and the
> present know-nothing SR experts, we have lost faith in what
> man can do. And this needs to change!
Reany wrote:
Let's build an ether tower right up to Heaven!
Reany wrote:
> Let's assume for the sake of argument that this lie was
> told. Why do you rank it as "greatest lie that ever
> occurred"? What's so damn important about it?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> This lie is still being told. Just read the FAQ!!! You will
> find SR presented as if it had evidence. You will find SR
> presented as if it were scientific to accept SR with no other
> consideration. You will find SR presented as if it alone
> accounted for the correct predictions. To me, you have lived
> this lie for so long that you will not even think about what
> you have done, both to yourselves, and to all thinking people
> who have depended on you being honest!
Reany wrote:
Who the hell do you think you are, O'Barr? John the Baptist of
the Ether Theory?
O'Barr wrote:
> What is important about this lie? It keeps you from
> accepting the at theory!
Reany wrote:
What's so cosmically important about that?
> And this is going to end! I am going to see
> that it is going to end! You have no right to lie, and
> you have no right to ignore the impossible thinking that SR
> experts have imposed upon our science!
Reany wrote:
I have argued a few times with "SR experts" on this newsgroup
about the misrepresentation of Einstein's relativity as
requiring a "realist" interpretation. About calling Newtonian
physics "nonrelativistic" though it uses the Galilean
transformations and never uses absolute velocities.
I have chided them occasionally about improper wording of the
Light Principle. In fact, your statement of the Light Principle
on your website is probably taken directly from me, because it
was my mantra many years ago when I was more active on this
newsgroup (starting in '94/5 as I recall). . . .
O'Barr comments:
There were a few years on the net that I missed due to other
assignments. But I would be most pleased to give you credit in
all areas where there is any good that has occurred! Also, in
the at theory, once you come to pure space, there are no
absolute references, and ultimately everything is relative.
But in our physical situation, the ether provides to us a
physical reference.
Reany wrote:
But you take the cake for misrepresenting SR and GR. I still
think that you don't really understand it, which is the minimum
requirement for contesting it so. There's a whole lot more to
SR than just The Principle of (SR) Relativity and the Light
Principle, which together just get the subject started by
setting down SR kinematics (as well as telling us what a
"physical law" is in this discipline). You either just don't
understand this or you intentionally ignore it. And by doing
so, you grossly misrepresent it. But to you, SR with a
"realist" interpretation is "physically" impossible, and with
an "instrumentalist-operationalist" intepretation (which is my
interpretation) is just "math."
O'Barr wrote:
> There are no 4-D
> spacetime continuums, there are no back-in-time events, and
> thus the simple ether theory is superior!
Reany wrote:
As far as we know there are no point particles in Nature,
yet that doesn't stop us from using the concept to MODEL mass
particles for certain purposes, including the kinetic theory of
gases.
How do you know that there are no 4-D spacetime continuums?
(And why are you so obsessed by it?) I've told before: prove
it!
(The physicist doesn't have to prove that 4-D spacetime
continuums exists, because all physicists ever do is to use the
concept in the modeling process. The models use it, but
Reality? Who knows? It doesn't really matter! All the theory
is required to do is to connect to physicality -- the set of
all possible observable events.)
O'Barr comments:
There really is a physical reality. We really have every
hope of understand it. When we adopt a point of view that is
incorrect, we limit our progress. Therefore, it is important
that we not only are able to correctly predict, but also,
correctly understand. You, with your present attitude, stand
in the way of this progress! We will, we must, expect more out
of physics that what you do! The at theory will help restore
to us our abilities to maintain this hope, this progress, that
we all need and want! And we will have it! No one stands in
the way of progress!
GLOBARR
In <8h7u5a$aju$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Tim Shuba <sh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ref: <8h1s0o$al9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000601203833...@ng-mb1.aol.com>
Gerald L O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> In the ether, the ether math can handle velocities
> faster than c, even near infinite velocities if it
> were ever necessary. SR math cannot do these things!
Shuba wrote:
Aha, that's a claim that deserves some backing. How,
exactly, does the "ether math" handle a particle with a
velocity of 2c with respect to the ether frame?
Specifically, what is the measured velocity of this particle
for an observer moving at speed (wrt the ether, of course)
c/2 in the same direction as the particle? I believe these
numbers are simple enough so I can gain an understanding of
how "ether math" works, and why "SR math" fails. Thanks
in advance for showing me this basic calculation.
O'Barr comments:
All SR experts are math experts. It is not right that I
should have to do any of these math things! Why not ask the
experts to tell you? They would have no problems at all.
However, you did ask so nice.
There are of course many ways to solve every problem. In
this problem, let us use the absolute ether frame (the
inertial frame at relative rest in the physical ether.)
GIVEN: Along an inertial line, in same direction:
1) Object B moves with absolute velocity of 2c.
2) Frame A moves with absolute velocity of c/2.
QUESTION: What velocity does frame A measure for object B?
Knowns:
1) SR Velocity measurement is distance between two clocks
divided by the time differences recorded by the two
clocks, when set with SR sync.
2) The ether frame sees a frame A unit ruler, aligned
with its positive direction in the direction of its
motion, to be of absolute length of SQRT(3/4). A
clock 1 is located at its zero point, and clock 2 is
located at its unit point.
3) The ether frame sees frame A clocks run at rate
SQRT(3/4), with an SR sync of 1/(2c).
This is the end to the facts. To test these facts, let
us see what frame A would measure for the speed of a photon.
In the ether, the following would occur:
Absolute time for a photon to move from clock 1 to clock
2 would be SQRT(3/4)/(c - c/2) = 2*SQRT(3/4)/c. In frame A,
they would measure the time by their clocks to be:
2*(3/4)/c - 1/(2c) = 1/c. Since in frame A, the distance
between the clocks would be seen to be a unit distance, they
would then calculate the velocity of the photon to be exactly
c. Thus the ether shows that SR assumptions are correct!
So for the original question, what would frame A measure
for the velocity of object B? The absolute time would be
SQRT(3/4)/(2c - c/2) = 2*SQRT(3/4)/(3c). In frame A, they
would measure the time by their clocks to be: 1/(2c) -
1/(2c) = 0. This ends up being a velocity in the reverse
direction (or the same direction) equal to infinity.
As you can see, this would be quite strange, and would
violate known relationships. But of course in the ether,
everything would be perfectly normal, symmetrical, and
logical.
Now please do not find any mistakes! I do not have time
to do such silly things. Just find a good SR expert, such as
Wayne, and he will set us both straight! But it really is
simple in the ether approach, and everything is perfect in
terms of what we see and in what we observe! And there is no
need for any unbelievable 4-D spacetime continuums, etc.
These SR thoughts are all lies, and not based upon one single
bit of evidence!
Thanks!!!!!!!
(How was it that you just happened to pick such a perfect
value? You picked the exact point where the apparent
velocity shifts in direction! A very interesting point.
Lots of interesting things occur in SR when you start to go
fasted than c. But of course in the ether, there is nothing
strange at any time. Thanks for being so helpful.)
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
It's a matter of definition, O'Barr. It certainly can be done.
> You cannot say what
> this clock physically did! Your theory does not say what
> individual clocks physically do. Obviously it had to have done
> something, but your math is multifunctional at this point, and
> more than one thing could have happened. Therefore, you cannot
> say what really physically happens!
For definiteness, let's say that the clocks involved in the thought
experiment are simple mechanical clocks. Well, we could start off by
saying that on average N's rate of mechanical movement that controls the
physical state of N's clock is slower on average than the mechanical
movement that controls the physical state of I's clock. It gets a little
more complicated here when we move from the triviality of averages, but
by very well-known arguments in extended relativity, we can imagine that
N is emitting a light signal toward I every T microseconds, say,
according to N's clock (i.e., N's proper time). And then we can infer
what is "really" going on "physically" in N's progression of time
relative to I, because, after all, I is in an inertial reference frame,
and "reality" is what you see from an inertial reference frame!
Sarcasm aside, I think the above procedure extends to a very convincing
argument. And it can be taken to a precise degree of meaning by using a
limit argument. But it's still a frivolous interpretation, because
physics can do without it. In any case, the best way to visualize this
thought experiment is by using a Minkowski diagram.
> O'Barr comments:
> There really is a physical reality.
And I accept that statement as an article of faith. But the ultimate
nature of reality is the province of Metaphysics, not physics. The
ultimate measurable nature of the appearances of the presumed physical
reality as revealed to us through physicality (or the
UMNOTAOTPPRARTUTP), is the province of physics and the other sciences.
Physics is all about appearances. Modern physics is in the search for
"deep appearances."
This must be my last entry in this thread.
Cheers,
Patrick
Gerald L. O'Barr
--
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
Read Pete Brown's Aether FAQ at:
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aeth_faq.htm
Read Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
Glird
>The math is an integral part of a physical
>theory, and the math of LET is not quite the same as that
>of SR, though they do make the same testable predictions,
>as mentioned.
>
What is the difference to which you refer?
> LET and SR are both physical theories ...
>
They differ in the way they interpret the nature of the physical
realities the identical equations treat.
glird
Gerald L. O'Barr
Ref: <3936CA53...@xroads.com>
<20000601232913...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (GlOBarr) wrote:
> > As a point of fact, your math cannot say
> > that the clocks do not physically slow down.
> > You lie if you say these things.
>
> Reany wrote:
> Please, O'Barr: You're hard enough to understand when
> you're not using double negatives.
> Fine. I'll tell the Big "Lie" of SR: I choose a simple
> example with all motion on a single line. Let two mobile
> reference frames, I and N, start off together at rest
> relative to each other, having origins together, and having
> their onboard clocks synchronized between them. Let I be in
> and continue in Inertial motion. Let N go off in Noninertial
> motion, sometime later rejoining I and putting origins
> together again. Let them compare their elapsed time of their
> clocks at the origins of their reference frames. N's onboard
> clock at his origin will read a time interval less than the
> time interval read by I's onboard clock at his origin. The
> math of SR makes a definite prediction.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And the math prediction is correct, N's clock will show less
> time than I's clock. And in SR, by theory, this is all you
> have the right to say! You can not, by theory, say that N's
> clock did not physically change its rate.
Patrick Reany wrote:
It's a matter of definition, O'Barr. It certainly can be done.
O'Barr comments:
You are right in the sense that it is done. And if it is
done, then obviously, it can be done. Let me say it again!!!
SR experts say these words all the time. So it is done. The
question is, upon what logic is it done? The math of SR does
not force you to say what the SR experts say! Therefore, by
theory, by the math of the theory, you are not forced to
conclude what SR experts say!!!!! This is the point that must
be comprehended. The SR experts have taken positions that
cannot be required by the math, nor by the results that are
seen and observed. Yet they act as if their approach is the
only possible way! It is even worse than just acting this way.
They do not even mention that there is any other way. This is
evil and sick thinking. This is unscientific. And no
`definition' can be used to justify such unacceptable acts!
Now some of this could be excused if the position they took
had been a position that could physically work. But for some
unknown reason, the SR experts wanted or ignorantly took a
position that is actually impossible to physically work. The
SR approach is actually Voodoo, and physically impossible. And
then to have supposedly educated men to not even understand
when these things are pointed out to them, show that the reason
they believe what they do is not just for theory. They have
some kind of an emotional attachment to these things, which
show up in them being unwilling to state anything in any kind
of a balance! How strange, in our enlightened age!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
> You cannot say what this clock physically did!
> Your theory does not say what individual clocks
> physically do. Obviously it had to have done something,
> but your math is multifunctional at this point, and
> more than one thing could have happened. Therefore, you
> cannot say what really physically happens!
Patrick Reany wrote:
For definiteness, let's say that the clocks involved in the
thought experiment are simple mechanical clocks. Well, we
could start off by saying that on average N's rate of
mechanical movement that controls the physical state of N's
clock is slower on average than the mechanical movement that
controls the physical state of I's clock. It gets a little
more complicated here when we move from the triviality of
averages, but by very well-known arguments in extended
relativity, we can imagine that N is emitting a light signal
toward I every T microseconds, say, according to N's clock
(i.e., N's proper time). And then we can infer what is
"really" going on "physically" in N's progression of time
relative to I, because, after all, I is in an inertial
reference frame, and "reality" is what you see from an inertial
reference frame!
Sarcasm aside, I think the above procedure extends to a very
convincing argument. And it can be taken to a precise degree
of meaning by using a limit argument. But it's still a
frivolous interpretation, because physics can do without it.
In any case, the best way to visualize this thought experiment
is by using a Minkowski diagram.
O'Barr comments:
There is nothing wrong in using something that works. But
the `something that works,' especially when it is just math,
does not always indicate anything that is real or physical.
> O'Barr comments:
> There really is a physical reality.
Patrick Reany wrote:
And I accept that statement as an article of faith.
O'Barr comments:
And this is good. We all have the right to accept such a
position.
Patrick Reany wrote:
But the ultimate nature of reality is the province of
Metaphysics, not physics.
O'Barr comments:
My physics covers all I know, and think, and understand. To
me, there are no boundaries when it comes to truth, or to our
best perceptions of that truth.
Patrick Reany wrote:
The ultimate measurable nature of the appearances of the
presumed physical reality as revealed to us through physicality
(or the UMNOTAOTPPRARTUTP), is the province of physics and the
other sciences. Physics is all about appearances. Modern
physics is in the search for "deep appearances."
O'Barr comments:
Certainly my physics includes all of what you say! And no
physics can be at odds with what you say! But by saying that
your only concern is what is observed, is what has allowed all
these problems to have developed. It is easy to just mimic, or
to just predict things that are regular. It is more difficult
and more responsible to understand! You have ran away from the
real problem, and in doing this, you have become irresponsible,
and careless, and non-scientific. This is going to end!
Patrick Reany wrote:
This must be my last entry in this thread.
Cheers,
O'Barr comments:
I am old enough to know that many good things have to end
for reasons way beyond us. I know that Lorentz had to bring
some things to an end, long time before they were properly
ended. If this is your last post on this thread, you will be
missed! Thank you for reading and responding. I know we
support each other in all the important areas!
The very best to you, and your family!
--
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
Read Pete Brown's Aether FAQ at:
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aeth_faq.htm
We do need a better ether FAQ! Where is it?
Read Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
sh...@my-deja.com
> sh...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >The math is an integral part of a physical
> >theory, and the math of LET is not quite the same as that
> >of SR, though they do make the same testable predictions,
> >as mentioned.
> >
> What is the difference to which you refer?
Let's compare how a simple problem is solved in LET and SR
to find out. Two observers O1 and O2 are passing each other
at relative speed (say c/2), moving in opposite directions.
Each observer measures the time difference between two events,
E1 and E2, which occur along the same line as the observers
are moving.
SR math to solve this problem takes the form of
t = t' * gamma(O1,O2) (Eq 1)
where t' and t are time differences between E1 and E2,
and gamma(O1,O2) means the value of gamma for velocity
of O2 with respect to O1.
LET math uses absolute time T, for an ether-based
observer E, and takes the form of
T = t' * gamma(E,O2) = t * gamma(E,O1) (Eq 2)
because local clocks are always incorrect in LET
unless they are re-synchronized to the ether frame.
We can rewrite Eq 2 as
t = t' * [gamma(E,O2)/gamma(E,O1)] (Eq 3)
Since the two mathematical models end up with the
same predictions, it is evident from Eqs 1 and 3 that
gamma(O1,O2) = gamma(E,O2)/gamma(E,O1) (Eq 4)
In other words, the mathematics of LET require
that time and distance measurements be transformed
to the ether frame before they are transformed to
another frame. Because of the structure of these
transformations, it can shown for a general observer
G in an arbitrary frame, it is always true that
gamma(O1,O2) = gamma(G,O2)/gamma(G,O1) (Eq 5)
Since Eq 4 is a specific case of Eq 5, we find
that ether math works the same no matter which frame
is the "true" ether frame. SR math takes advantage
of this and transforms directly between the frames
of O1 and O2.
--Tim Shuba--
GLOBARR
> >The math is an integral part of a physical
> >theory, and the math of LET is not quite the same as that
> >of SR, though they do make the same testable predictions,
> >as mentioned.
Glird wrote:
> What is the difference to which you refer?
Tim Shuba wrote: . . .
SR math to solve this problem takes the form of
t = t' * gamma(O1,O2) (Eq 1)
...LET math uses absolute time T, for an ether-based
observer E, and takes the form of
T = t' * gamma(E,O2) = t * gamma(E,O1) (Eq 2)
...
We can rewrite Eq 2 as
t = t' * [gamma(E,O2)/gamma(E,O1)] (Eq 3)
Since the two mathematical models end up with the
same predictions, it is evident from Eqs 1 and 3 that
gamma(O1,O2) = gamma(E,O2)/gamma(E,O1) (Eq 4)
In other words, the mathematics of LET require
that time and distance measurements be transformed
to the ether frame before they are transformed to
another frame. Because of the structure of these
transformations, it can shown for a general observer
G in an arbitrary frame, it is always true that
gamma(O1,O2) = gamma(G,O2)/gamma(G,O1) (Eq 5)
Since Eq 4 is a specific case of Eq 5, we find
that ether math works the same no matter which frame
is the "true" ether frame. SR math takes advantage
of this and transforms directly between the frames
of O1 and O2.
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
What you said above might be correct as far as math goes.
What your error is, IMHO, you do not consider the physical
situation. It is not the math of the ether that requires you
to first transfer to the ether frame. The math of the ether
allows you to directly transfer between any frames you care to
transfer, just exactly as in SR. The difference is that in the
ether, there is a physical solution as well as all these math
solutions. And the ether's physical solution is exactly
perfect, exactly as perfect as any solution in SR.
And this is what gives understanding, and do-ability, and
power to the ether approach. Now no one can be so dumb that
they do not know all this. Only someone who was making a
specific effort to confuse and to mislead could be this `dumb.'
Only someone who was being unscientific would not freely admit
and enjoy what is gained by a physical approach. What
happened to you?
Do we have to have a physical solution? According to the
SR experts, they do not even know what such words mean. But by
having a physical solution, you get back to simple physics.
You get back to simple 3-D space, and simple and independent
time. And you get simple vector additions, and simple
everything. There is no longer any possibility for back-in-
time effects, and you can have infinite velocities. With a
physical solution, you return to a reality where there is
understanding, and the return of physical causes and effects,
and to material relationships. No more Voodoo and no more
physically impossible explanations.
Now is any of this important? It must depend on your
religion, I guess. I cannot see any other reason why any
educated person can not see these things!
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
(Some day we will be able to read the FAQ?)
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
sh...@my-deja.com
> [LET and SR]
> are both not "based" on observation. They are both theories in
> agreement with observation - that's a difference. They above contain
> unproven and unprovable metaphysical assumptions of different type.
OK.
> Because [SR] predicts Bell's inequality, but LET not.
I'm unsure as to how SR predicts Bell. SR has nothing to
say about faster-than-light possibilities except that they
cannot create observables in our measurements. And this
EPR-realistic FTL effect doesn't ever make a difference in
any experimental results within the domain of SR.
> > I don't see at all why you think that LET supports
> > faster-than-light travel (travel of what??).
>
> That's not the point - it doesn't forbid it. EPR-realistic causal
> SR forbids it, EPR-realistic causal LET not.
This depends upon unproven and unprovable assumptions of
EPR-realism. To say there is a *real* causal link in EPR
experiments seems a bit of a stretch, since this causation
doesn't act like any other causation that we know. It hides
itself so well that no information transfer can be done. Piling
hidden variables on top of unprovables on top of unobservables
doesn't appear to be a particularly good plan to end up with
a unique crystalline ether. We have an unobservable frame,
which allows unobservable FTL particles to produce real effects
to explain Bell. At rest in this unobservable frame, we have
an unobservable crystalline framework, the stresses in which
give rise to a real, yet unobservable length contraction, etc.
There may be a certain intellectual dissatisfaction in a
Copenhagen-like proclamation such as "there is no reality
outside of measurement", but at least it does keep the
quantum weirdness in one place.
> The difference is causality. The LET notion of causality is related
> with absolute time and not Lorentz-covariant. Einstein causality is
> Lorentz-covariant.
Causality of any stripe is a logical dependence for an effect.
Anything less is simply a correlation, a much weaker linking.
---Tim Shuba---
Ilja Schmelzer
>> Because [SR] predicts Bell's inequality, but LET not.
>
> I'm unsure as to how SR predicts Bell.
What you need is Einstein-causality and EPR-realism.
> SR has nothing to say about faster-than-light possibilities except
> that they cannot create observables in our measurements.
No. Realistic SR is a theory about reality. It claims that reality is
Lorentz-covariant. It does not accept any hidden non-covariant
things.
> And this EPR-realistic FTL effect doesn't ever make a difference in
> any experimental results within the domain of SR.
That's a weakened version. The main idea of SR is that
Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
fundamental property of nature.
For example, almost every relativist considers Bohmian mechanics as
highly dubious because it requires a preferred frame - even if it
remains hidden and does not lead to observable effects.
>>> I don't see at all why you think that LET supports
>>> faster-than-light travel (travel of what??).
>>
>> That's not the point - it doesn't forbid it. EPR-realistic causal
>> SR forbids it, EPR-realistic causal LET not.
>
> This depends upon unproven and unprovable assumptions of
> EPR-realism.
Of course. Everything depends on assumptions. If the only assumption
is such a simple and fundamental principle as realism, that's
completely sufficient for me.
Moreover, there is no independent evidence against EPR-realism, but
other conflicts between relativity and other independent physical
principles.
> To say there is a *real* causal link in EPR experiments seems a bit
> of a stretch, since this causation doesn't act like any other
> causation that we know. It hides itself so well that no information
> transfer can be done.
You think that complicate? Make sure that you can have two
explanations A->B and B->A for your correlation and it cannot be used
to transfer infos from A to B.
> Piling hidden variables on top of unprovables on top of
> unobservables doesn't appear to be a particularly good plan to end
> up with a unique crystalline ether. We have an unobservable frame,
> which allows unobservable FTL particles to produce real effects to
> explain Bell. At rest in this unobservable frame, we have an
> unobservable crystalline framework, the stresses in which give rise
> to a real, yet unobservable length contraction, etc.
The length contraction is sufficiently observable.
And I do not understand your problems with unobservables. Who has
told you that everything real should be observable? Its a really
strange assumption, having in mind that we are ourself part of the
game and measure only using almost the same stuff we want to measure.
There is nothing weird in the assumption that this restriction forbids
to measure some absolutes. Instead, it would be weird if we would be
nonetheless able to measure everything.
>> The difference is causality. The LET notion of causality is related
>> with absolute time and not Lorentz-covariant. Einstein causality is
>> Lorentz-covariant.
> Causality of any stripe is a logical dependence for an effect.
> Anything less is simply a correlation, a much weaker linking.
Yep. But if there is no causal link in reality, we can prove Bell's
inequality for correlations.
sh...@my-deja.com
> Realistic SR is a theory about reality. It claims that reality is
> Lorentz-covariant. It does not accept any hidden non-covariant
> things.
>
> > And this EPR-realistic FTL effect doesn't ever make a difference
> > in any experimental results within the domain of SR.
>
> That's a weakened version. The main idea of SR is that
> Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
> fundamental property of nature.
In the sense that Lorentz-covariance is the basis for many modern
theories, I agree. But to me SR is limited to the domain of
electromagnetic effects.
> For example, almost every relativist considers Bohmian mechanics as
> highly dubious because it requires a preferred frame - even if it
> remains hidden and does not lead to observable effects.
From what I've read (not much), the problems of Bohmian mechanics
go well beyond that. It effectively uses a classical notion of
determinism to explain the probablistsic nature of QM. Yet the
variables must remain hidden, so that the probablistic nature
remains somehow inside this black box of determinism.
> If the only assumption
> is such a simple and fundamental principle as realism, that's
> completely sufficient for me.
>
> Moreover, there is no independent evidence against EPR-realism, but
> other conflicts between relativity and other independent physical
> principles.
Which physical principles? And, though I'm sure you've said it
before, what do you mean exactly by EPR-realism?
> > To say there is a *real* causal link in EPR experiments seems a bit
> > of a stretch, since this causation doesn't act like any other
> > causation that we know. It hides itself so well that no information
> > transfer can be done.
>
> You think that complicate? Make sure that you can have two
> explanations A->B and B->A for your correlation and it cannot be used
> to transfer infos from A to B.
I don't understand. Are you saying that a preferred frame picks
one of either A->B or B->A, so that info transfer becomes possible?
> The length contraction is sufficiently observable.
It is mutually observable, which makes me wonder about its
quality of 'reality'.
> And I do not understand your problems with unobservables. Who has
> told you that everything real should be observable? Its a really
> strange assumption, having in mind that we are ourself part of the
> game and measure only using almost the same stuff we want to measure.
>
> There is nothing weird in the assumption that this restriction forbids
> to measure some absolutes. Instead, it would be weird if we would be
> nonetheless able to measure everything.
Your premise is certainly correct. I do not expect everything
to be observable, but we must be careful to assign complicated
"real" attributes to these unobservables. In the extreme, we
can consistently explain all observations as the capricious
musings of an unobservable 'entity', but this is hardly physics.
The more the unobservables are considered "real" properties
with "real" structure, the weaker is the physical theory. That
is why I don't consider realism as the guiding principle upon
which our physics is based. Reality depends very much on our
models, as well as our intellectual and experimental ingenuity.
> > Causality of any stripe is a logical dependence for an effect.
> > Anything less is simply a correlation, a much weaker linking.
>
> Yep. But if there is no causal link in reality, we can prove Bell's
> inequality for correlations.
I think you may underestimate the possibilities. See, for example,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9806074
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> And this EPR-realistic FTL effect doesn't ever make a difference
>>> in any experimental results within the domain of SR.
>>
>> That's a weakened version. The main idea of SR is that
>> Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
>> fundamental property of nature.
>
> In the sense that Lorentz-covariance is the basis for many modern
> theories, I agree. But to me SR is limited to the domain of
> electromagnetic effects.
Here I can only tell you about my complete disagreement.
>> For example, almost every relativist considers Bohmian mechanics as
>> highly dubious because it requires a preferred frame - even if it
>> remains hidden and does not lead to observable effects.
>
> From what I've read (not much), the problems of Bohmian mechanics
> go well beyond that. It effectively uses a classical notion of
> determinism to explain the probablistsic nature of QM. Yet the
> variables must remain hidden, so that the probablistic nature
> remains somehow inside this black box of determinism.
And whats the problem? Probabilistic nature because we don't know the
initial conditions, as usual in classical statistics.
>> If the only assumption is such a simple and fundamental principle
>> as realism, that's completely sufficient for me. Moreover, there
>> is no independent evidence against EPR-realism, but other conflicts
>> between relativity and other independent physical principles.
> Which physical principles?
Quantum principles, local existense of energy and momentum density for
gravity.
> And, though I'm sure you've said it before, what do you mean exactly
> by EPR-realism?
The criterion of reality suggested by EPR in their famous paper.
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with
certainty ... the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an
element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."
You can use also the definition of realism I have given in
gr-qc/0001101
>>> To say there is a *real* causal link in EPR experiments seems a bit
>>> of a stretch, since this causation doesn't act like any other
>>> causation that we know. It hides itself so well that no information
>>> transfer can be done.
>>
>> You think that complicate? Make sure that you can have two
>> explanations A-> B and B-> A for your correlation and it cannot be used
>> to transfer infos from A to B.
>
> I don't understand. Are you saying that a preferred frame picks
> one of either A-> B or B-> A, so that info transfer becomes possible?
For a given observable situation, LET has different explanations in
dependence of the really preferred frame. It depends on the preferred
frame which clock is really slower. And, as well, it depends on the
preferred frame in which direction the hidden information transfer
happens.
>> The length contraction is sufficiently observable.
>
> It is mutually observable, which makes me wonder about its
> quality of 'reality'.
In LET it is real, and if we cannot distinguish some really different
situations that's our personal problem. SR is not a realistic theory,
at least today.
>> And I do not understand your problems with unobservables. Who has
>> told you that everything real should be observable? Its a really
>> strange assumption, having in mind that we are ourself part of the
>> game and measure only using almost the same stuff we want to measure.
>>
>> There is nothing weird in the assumption that this restriction forbids
>> to measure some absolutes. Instead, it would be weird if we would be
>> nonetheless able to measure everything.
>
> Your premise is certainly correct. I do not expect everything
> to be observable, but we must be careful to assign complicated
> "real" attributes to these unobservables. In the extreme, we
> can consistently explain all observations as the capricious
> musings of an unobservable 'entity', but this is hardly physics.
To distinguish theories we can use their predictive power.
> The more the unobservables are considered "real" properties with
> "real" structure, the weaker is the physical theory.
No. The predictive power (Popper's criterion) may be unchanged or
greater for hidden variable theories.
> That is why I don't consider realism as the guiding principle upon
> which our physics is based. Reality depends very much on our models,
> as well as our intellectual and experimental ingenuity.
Realism is close enough to the basics of scientific methodology
itself. There are simply some things which cannot be disproven by
experiment - like logic. Simply because our justification of the
scientific method is partially based on logic, if you throw logic
away, you throw science away. Of course, that's not so obvious for
realism, but last not least we believe that science may be successful
because there is some reality guided by the laws of nature.
Of course, the models change, but realism itself, the concept to
explain something using realistic models, is indeed a very fundamental
issue, much more fundamental than the particular issues of quantum
gravity.
>>> Causality of any stripe is a logical dependence for an effect.
>>> Anything less is simply a correlation, a much weaker linking.
>>
>> Yep. But if there is no causal link in reality, we can prove Bell's
>> inequality for correlations.
> I think you may underestimate the possibilities. See, for example,
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9806074
The "common cause" we need for a causal Einstein-compatible
explanation should be located in the past. Thus, at a time where it
is not known what will be measured. In this sense, you need a common
common cause, not separate ones.
sh...@my-deja.com
> >> The main idea of SR is that
> >> Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
> >> fundamental property of nature.
> >
> > In the sense that Lorentz-covariance is the basis for many modern
> > theories, I agree. But to me SR is limited to the domain of
> > electromagnetic effects.
>
> Here I can only tell you about my complete disagreement.
I probably should have said the domain of classical mechanics
as well as (classical) electrodynamics, but I suspect you still
would have complete disagreement. Perhaps I am jaded by
the fact that every treatment of SR that I've ever seen uses EM
or classical mechanics. Also, since the never-ending debate on
this newsgroup centers around "SR vs LET", I tend to consider SR
in terms of electromagnetism. Your characterization of
Lorentz-covariance as the main idea of SR is fine. Covariance has
certainly been a guiding light in the search for theories in the
twentieth century, and the successes of electroweak unification,
GR, and QM all depend upon covariance. So I will agree also that
Lorentz-covariance is a fundamental property of nature in today's
science.
> > [Bohmian mechanics] effectively uses a classical notion of
> > determinism to explain the probablistsic nature of QM. Yet the
> > variables must remain hidden, so that the probablistic nature
> > remains somehow inside this black box of determinism.
>
> And whats the problem? Probabilistic nature because we don't know the
> initial conditions, as usual in classical statistics.
Not quite the same. There's a difference between not knowing
and not being able to know in principle. Either way, the
probabilistic nature of QM doesn't go away, so it's hardly a
strong explanation. In the final analysis, it comes down to
which interpretations are most pleasing to us. Explaining
probability with an unobservable determinism isn't pleasing
to me. It sidesteps the issue, hiding it under a cloak of 'realism'
that I find very unreal.
> > And, though I'm sure you've said it before, what do you mean exactly
> > by EPR-realism?
>
> The criterion of reality suggested by EPR in their famous paper.
>
> "If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with
> certainty ... the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an
> element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."
Thanks.
> For a given observable situation, LET has different explanations in
> dependence of the really preferred frame. It depends on the preferred
> frame which clock is really slower. And, as well, it depends on the
> preferred frame in which direction the hidden information transfer
> happens.
Hidden info transfer? Lovely. Another unobservable 'real' process.
Do you propose anything about reality that can actually be measured?
You say I cannot trust clocks to measure time, nor rods to measure
distance. Real information transfer, in my mind, is not hidden within
some Bohmian black box.
> > In the extreme, we
> > can consistently explain all observations as the capricious
> > musings of an unobservable 'entity', but this is hardly physics.
>
> To distinguish theories we can use their predictive power.
OK then, let's have the 'entity' consistently follow GR for classical
problems and follow quantum mechanics for non-classical problems.
Unfortunately, I'll have to pay my own way to Stockholm with this grand
unification theory, even though it makes perfect predictions.
> > The more the unobservables are considered "real" properties with
> > "real" structure, the weaker is the physical theory.
>
> No. The predictive power (Popper's criterion) may be unchanged or
> greater for hidden variable theories.
But the hidden variables themselves cannot be falsified. That's why my
"hidden entity" theory is lousy physics, even in its new form, where it
has optimum predictive power.
> Realism is close enough to the basics of scientific methodology
> itself. There are simply some things which cannot be disproven by
> experiment - like logic. Simply because our justification of the
> scientific method is partially based on logic, if you throw logic
> away, you throw science away. Of course, that's not so obvious for
> realism, but last not least we believe that science may be successful
> because there is some reality guided by the laws of nature.
>
> Of course, the models change, but realism itself, the concept to
> explain something using realistic models, is indeed a very fundamental
> issue, much more fundamental than the particular issues of quantum
> gravity.
Best as I can tell, you prefer realistic models based on unfalsifiable
hidden-variables. Let's reword the quote defining EPR-realism and
say, "If, without knowing any details about a theory, we can predict
with certainty that the observable quantities are Lorentz-covariant,
then there exists an element of physical reality." Why is this element
of reality worth cheapening by hiding it behind hidden entities?
> > I think you may underestimate the possibilities. See, for example,
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9806074
>
> The "common cause" we need for a causal Einstein-compatible
> explanation should be located in the past. Thus, at a time where it
> is not known what will be measured. In this sense, you need a common
> common cause, not separate ones.
It is never known what will be measured at the time of an EPR-type
experiment. The correlation is only seen after non-FTL signals are
exchanged. I brought up this reference only to show that the claims
that Bell can be proved in LET yet not in SR are not as straightforward
as you tend to make them sound.
---Tim Shuba---
Patrick Reany
sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Covariance has
> certainly been a guiding light in the search for theories in the
> twentieth century, and the successes of electroweak unification,
> GR, and QM all depend upon covariance. So I will agree also that
> Lorentz-covariance is a fundamental property of nature in today's
> science.
Do you mean to say that you infer a property of Nature itself on the basis
of how anthropomorphic variables mathematically interrelate measurements?
Patrick
shuba
>sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Covariance has
>> certainly been a guiding light in the search for theories in
the
>> twentieth century, and the successes of electroweak
unification,
>> GR, and QM all depend upon covariance. So I will agree also
that
>> Lorentz-covariance is a fundamental property of nature in
today's
>> science.
>
>Do you mean to say that you infer a property of Nature itself
on the basis
>of how anthropomorphic variables mathematically interrelate
measurements?
Certainly. As a human, it's the best method of inference I know.
---Tim Shuba---
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Patrick Reany
shuba wrote:
>
> >Do you mean to say that you infer a property of Nature itself
> on the basis
> >of how anthropomorphic variables mathematically interrelate
> measurements?
>
> Certainly. As a human, it's the best method of inference I know.
The best method of inference to what end?
Do you consider this inference scientific or merely personal? That is,
do you consider this particular inference to be a "scientific"
inference?
Patrick
shuba
It can be scientific, sure. We have learned to relate
symmetries in our mathematical descriptions with fundamentals
in the physical laws. That's why I backed off my statement
that SR's domain is strictly electromagnetism. Ilja is
correct, Lorentz-covariance does point to a fundamental
nature of space and time that necessarily extends beyond EM.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> [Bohmian mechanics] effectively uses a classical notion of
>>> determinism to explain the probablistsic nature of QM. Yet the
>>> variables must remain hidden, so that the probablistic nature
>>> remains somehow inside this black box of determinism.
>> And whats the problem? Probabilistic nature because we don't know
>> the initial conditions, as usual in classical statistics.
> Not quite the same. There's a difference between not knowing
> and not being able to know in principle.
Yep, but if you consider BM not as the most fundamental theory, but
only as an approximation of some yet unknown more fundamental theory,
this difference becomes less important.
> Either way, the probabilistic nature of QM doesn't go away, so it's
> hardly a strong explanation. In the final analysis, it comes down to
> which interpretations are most pleasing to us. Explaining
> probability with an unobservable determinism isn't pleasing to
> me. It sidesteps the issue, hiding it under a cloak of 'realism'
> that I find very unreal.
It doesn't matter. For me, the point of BM is to prove
_compatibility_ of observation with realism.
>> For a given observable situation, LET has different explanations in
>> dependence of the really preferred frame. It depends on the preferred
>> frame which clock is really slower. And, as well, it depends on the
>> preferred frame in which direction the hidden information transfer
>> happens.
> Hidden info transfer? Lovely. Another unobservable 'real' process.
> Do you propose anything about reality that can actually be measured?
Of course - all SR/GR predictions which follow from LET/GET too ;-)
> You say I cannot trust clocks to measure time, nor rods to measure
> distance. Real information transfer, in my mind, is not hidden
> within some Bohmian black box.
There is information transfer you observe in your mind, which is not
hidden. And there is other, which causes the violation of Bell's
inequality (which is an observable effect).
>>> In the extreme, we can consistently explain all observations as
>>> the capricious musings of an unobservable 'entity', but this is
>>> hardly physics.
>> To distinguish theories we can use their predictive power.
> OK then, let's have the 'entity' consistently follow GR for classical
> problems and follow quantum mechanics for non-classical problems.
> Unfortunately, I'll have to pay my own way to Stockholm with this grand
> unification theory, even though it makes perfect predictions.
BM and GET make predictions.
>>> The more the unobservables are considered "real" properties with
>>> "real" structure, the weaker is the physical theory.
>>
>> No. The predictive power (Popper's criterion) may be unchanged or
>> greater for hidden variable theories.
> But the hidden variables themselves cannot be falsified. That's why
> my "hidden entity" theory is lousy physics, even in its new form,
> where it has optimum predictive power.
May be, of course. First, they may be falsified together with their
observable part. If you find a violation of SR, LET is out too. But
there may be also additional restrictions. If you observe a wormhole,
GET is out, GR not.
>> Of course, the models change, but realism itself, the concept to
>> explain something using realistic models, is indeed a very fundamental
>> issue, much more fundamental than the particular issues of quantum
>> gravity.
> Best as I can tell, you prefer realistic models based on
> unfalsifiable hidden-variables.
The general idea that there may be hidden variables will be indeed
unfalsifiable. But in its realization as a special hidden variable
theory of a given theory the HV theory will be falsifiable.
> Let's reword the quote defining EPR-realism and
> say, "If, without knowing any details about a theory, we can predict
> with certainty that the observable quantities are Lorentz-covariant,
> then there exists an element of physical reality."
???????????
> Why is this element of reality worth cheapening by hiding it behind
> hidden entities?
Don't understand your question.
>>> I think you may underestimate the possibilities. See, for example,
>>> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9806074
>> The "common cause" we need for a causal Einstein-compatible
>> explanation should be located in the past. Thus, at a time where it
>> is not known what will be measured. In this sense, you need a
>> common common cause, not separate ones.
> It is never known what will be measured at the time of an EPR-type
> experiment. The correlation is only seen after non-FTL signals are
> exchanged. I brought up this reference only to show that the claims
> that Bell can be proved in LET yet not in SR are not as
> straightforward as you tend to make them sound.
The claims I have made are straightforward. Read Bell's proof. A
confusing paper talking about separate common causes does not change
anything.
Jim Carr
}
} Realistic SR is a theory about reality. It claims that reality is
} Lorentz-covariant. It does not accept any hidden non-covariant
} things.
}
} > in any experimental results within the domain of SR.
}
} Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
} fundamental property of nature.
In article <8hri9i$fd2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
sh...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>In the sense that Lorentz-covariance is the basis for many modern
>theories, I agree. But to me SR is limited to the domain of
>electromagnetic effects.
What part of
1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zust\"ande der physikalischen
Systeme \"andern, sind unabh\"angig davon, auf welches von zwei
relativ zueinander in gleichf\"ormiger Translationsbewegung
befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustands\"anderungen
bezogen wergen.
[The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to
the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform
translatory motion.]
limits SR to only electromagnetic effects? You seem to confuse
ether theories with SR.
PS - And since QED is covariant and yet leads to a violation of the
Bell inequality, it is clear that covariant theories can do this.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Patrick Reany
Jim Carr wrote:
> Ilja wrote:
> }
> } Realistic SR is a theory about reality. It claims that reality is
> } Lorentz-covariant. It does not accept any hidden non-covariant
> } things.
> }
I know of no such thing that a "realistic SR is a theory about reality." I know
of no definition of "reality" in physics. I *do* know of a physical SR theory
being a theory about physicality. Physicality is the set of all observable
events. Observable events have the same ordering for all inertial reference
frames, but metrical properties of distance and time intervals between events
are frame dependent.
So, one can say that "physicality is Lorentz covariant," by which we mean that
laws (of mechanics and optics) based on metrical properties of observable events
in small regions of spacetime are Lorentz covariant. The notion of a "hidden
noncovariant thing" is pretty vague. Although the measured speed of light in
empty space is an inertial-reference-frame invariant of SR, how it does what it
does is very hidden. But then, SR is *not* about *how* light does what is does.
It's about the *consequences* of what light does, first to measurements of space
and time, then to kinematics, then to dynamics.
}[snip] The main idea of SR is that
} Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
} fundamental property of nature.
Lorentz covariance cannot be thought of as an "observable effect" for two
reasons. First, it isn't an effect. Second, it isn't observable. Events can be
observable. By conventional definition variables that a theory holds as
predictive of observable events are thought of as "observables." But covariance
isn't an observable itself, neither for SR nor even for Galilean/Newtonian
relativity.
Physicists deal with physicality and the physical theories that account for it.
Natural philosophers deal with "fundamental properties of nature."
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
> I know of no such thing that a "realistic SR is a theory about
> reality." I know of no definition of "reality" in physics.
So that's your problem. There was a reasonable criterion for realism
proposed by EPR. Try also my definition of realism given in
gr-qc/0001101.
> }[snip] The main idea of SR is that
> } Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
> } fundamental property of nature.
>
> Lorentz covariance cannot be thought of as an "observable effect" for two
> reasons. First, it isn't an effect. Second, it isn't observable. Events can be
> observable. By conventional definition variables that a theory holds as
> predictive of observable events are thought of as "observables." But covariance
> isn't an observable itself, neither for SR nor even for Galilean/Newtonian
> relativity.
The physical meaning of covariance is indeed a very confusing issue,
but your remarks do not seem to decrease this confusion.
> Physicists deal with physicality and the physical theories that
> account for it.
Physicality sounds funny but is in no way helpful for methodological
discussion.
> Natural philosophers deal with "fundamental properties of nature."
Theoreticians propose theories, which make predictions. Fundamental
properties of nature are part of these theories.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> So that's your problem. There was a reasonable criterion for realism
> proposed by EPR. Try also my definition of realism given in
> gr-qc/0001101.
I'm interested in what it has to say, but I hold no great faith for any such
definition. Anyway, I did NOT say that no physicist has a definition of "reality." I
said I know of no generally accepted definition of it.
> Physicality sounds funny but is in no way helpful for methodological
> discussion.
Think about it with an an mind for a moment. All we know that is out there in the
external world to our own consciousness is just a whole bunch of observable events.
We humans get together and decide that as a group we should be able to say something
of this morass of events to make some communal sense out of them. We come to an
agreement that we all agree on the temporal order of these observable events, at
least the temporal order of those observable events that we all have in common. Then
we decide what else we can agree on. The ultimate unit of irreducible metaphysical
objects in our formal view called Science is this simple thing -- the observable
event. This really is the irreducible that brings order out of chaos for me.
We may argue how to assign numbers to relationships on these events, but every good
theory of physics makes some determination on how to do this. The most important way
we assign numbers to pairs of event is called measurement. And EVERYTHING else in a
theory is built thereupon.
Patrick
sh...@my-deja.com
> In article <8hri9i$fd2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sh...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> >In the sense that Lorentz-covariance is the basis for many modern
> >theories, I agree. But to me SR is limited to the domain of
> >electromagnetic effects.
>
> What part of
>
> 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zust\"ande der physikalischen
> Systeme \"andern, sind unabh\"angig davon, auf welches von zwei
> relativ zueinander in gleichf\"ormiger Translationsbewegung
> befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustands\"anderungen
> bezogen wergen.
>
> [The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
> are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to
> the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform
> translatory motion.]
>
> limits SR to only electromagnetic effects? You seem to confuse
> ether theories with SR.
Indeed I had, and I subsequently backed off of my quote above.
The title of Einstein's paper didn't help me either, since he
was describing something much more intriguing than 'just' the
electrodynamics of moving bodies.
> PS - And since QED is covariant and yet leads to a violation of the
> Bell inequality, it is clear that covariant theories can do
> this.
Okay.
sh...@my-deja.com
> > Ilja wrote:
> > }
> > } Realistic SR is a theory about reality. It claims that reality is
> > } Lorentz-covariant. It does not accept any hidden non-covariant
> > } things.
> > }
> I *do* know of a physical SR theory
> being a theory about physicality. Physicality is the set of all
> observable events. Observable events have the same ordering for all
> inertial reference frames, but metrical properties of distance and
> time intervals between events are frame dependent.
What does *that* mean? Same ordering? If you are talking temporal
ordering, your statement is clearly false.
> }[snip] The main idea of SR is that
> } Lorentz-covariance is more than an observable effect, but is a
> } fundamental property of nature.
>
> Lorentz covariance cannot be thought of as an "observable effect" for > two reasons. First, it isn't an effect. Second, it isn't observable.
> Events can be observable. By conventional definition variables that a > theory holds as predictive of observable events are thought of as
> "observables." But covariance
> isn't an observable itself, neither for SR nor even for
> Galilean/Newtonian relativity.
Covariance is properly applied to the structure of a theory,
not to individual events. Covariance is clearly observed
to be a property of SR, so I find Ilja's use of terms entirely
understandable.
> Physicists deal with physicality and the physical theories that
> account for it.
> Natural philosophers deal with "fundamental properties of nature."
Gads. That's a terrible way to think about it. What was
once called natural philosophy *is* what we call physics
today. Inventing a goofy term (physicality) for events
adds nothing at all. I just grabbed an old college course
listing off my shelf. Here's the first sentence under
the physics listings:
. "Physics is the science concerned with the fundamental
. "properties, laws, and structures common to all forms of
. "matter, living and nonliving.
Patrick Reany
sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
>
> >
> > Lorentz covariance cannot be thought of as an "observable effect" for > two reasons. First, it isn't an effect. Second, it isn't observable.
> > Events can be observable. By conventional definition variables that a > theory holds as predictive of observable events are thought of as
> > "observables." But covariance
> > isn't an observable itself, neither for SR nor even for
> > Galilean/Newtonian relativity.
>
> Covariance is properly applied to the structure of a theory,
> not to individual events.
Agreed, of course! Covariance is part of the implicit definition of a physical law in SR. No one can prove that covariance is a property of nature
or just a property of our anthropomorphic manner of assigning numbers to event pairs in a consistent way. Or, are you prepared to prove your
contrary metaphysical belief?
> Covariance is clearly observed
> to be a property of SR, so I find Ilja's use of terms entirely
> understandable.
Oh, I find people's use of it "understandable" all right. But covariance is a part of SR theory as a willful act of those who put it there. The
added step of going from a useful theory's models to an induction about the TRUTH of the natural realm is an induction I'm not allowing for
Science proper. Do so within your own natural philosophy.
I have read a little of Ilja's paper on GET and I found it interesting. I think his notion of the complexity of observing events is about the same
as my own. So I suspect that we are not all that different as you believe us to be.
> > Physicists deal with physicality and the physical theories that
> > account for it.
> > Natural philosophers deal with "fundamental properties of nature."
>
> Gads. That's a terrible way to think about it. What was
> once called natural philosophy *is* what we call physics
> today.
Historically almost correct. Galileo differentiate the two, but it is true that the common belief is that natural philosophy is good old science
of long ago. But the logical approach is to take its meaning at face value because such a term is needed and because maintaining it as a
deprecated replacement for "science" which is never going to be fashionable again is essentially removing the term from the jargon of
philosophical debate. I put it to better use. One could argue that today's chemistry is just yesterday's alchemy, but so what? They are
distinguished today just as is astronomy and astrology.
> Inventing a goofy term (physicality) for events
> adds nothing at all.
Why is it goofy?
> I just grabbed an old college course
> listing off my shelf. Here's the first sentence under
> the physics listings:
>
> . "Physics is the science concerned with the fundamental
> . "properties, laws, and structures common to all forms of
> . "matter, living and nonliving.
>
>
That's one person's definition. It does not happen to be mine. At least it doesn't include any vague terms such as "natural law." Just the same,
the term "fundamental property" is not well defined within this definition. Maybe you can help clear up that definition by supplying for us the
correct definition of "law" used in that definition you presented.
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
>> So that's your problem. There was a reasonable criterion for realism
>> proposed by EPR. Try also my definition of realism given in
>> gr-qc/0001101.
> I'm interested in what it has to say, but I hold no great faith for
> any such definition. Anyway, I did NOT say that no physicist has a
> definition of "reality." I said I know of no generally accepted
> definition of it.
My definition is essentially what Bell has used in his proof of Bell's
inequality. And Bell's assumptions are often enough referenced as
"local realism". All this is also close enough to the EPR criterion
of reality.
Thus, I don't think that there is much disagreement about the notion
of classical realism.
>> Physicality sounds funny but is in no way helpful for methodological
>> discussion.
> Think about it with an an mind for a moment. All we know that is out
> there in the external world to our own consciousness is just a whole
> bunch of observable events.
No, we don't know anything for sure, we make theories about what is
out there.
> We humans get together and decide that as a group we should be able
> to say something of this morass of events to make some communal
> sense out of them. We come to an agreement that we all agree on the
> temporal order of these observable events, at least the temporal
> order of those observable events that we all have in common. Then we
> decide what else we can agree on. The ultimate unit of irreducible
> metaphysical objects in our formal view called Science is this
> simple thing -- the observable event. This really is the irreducible
> that brings order out of chaos for me.
That's an old and wrong methodological concept named positivism.
What brings order into the chaos are theories.
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> [snip]
>
> My definition is essentially what Bell has used in his proof of Bell's
> inequality. And Bell's assumptions are often enough referenced as
> "local realism". All this is also close enough to the EPR criterion
> of reality.
I dislike any use of "realism" or "reality" in physics because the terms
are too emotionally overloaded. From the psychological perspective it's
easy to understand why. Humans conjoin their personal self identity and
self worth with their concept of "reality." Not to mention the political
and religious overtones. This causes unnecessary and unavoidable
distraction when using the term. These two terms will forever be overloaded
with irrelevant emotional connotations that distract us from rational
thought, especially rational communal thought. However, I can see from the
psychological point of view how hard it is for realists to objectively
separate themselves from this ideology to practice communal science!
> Thus, I don't think that there is much disagreement about the notion
> of classical realism.
Only to a classical realist.
> >> Physicality sounds funny but is in no way helpful for methodological
> >> discussion.
I suppose in your philosophy of physics you have no use for observable
events.
> > Think about it with an an mind for a moment. All we know that is out
> > there in the external world to our own consciousness is just a whole
> > bunch of observable events.
>
> No, we don't know anything for sure, we make theories about what is
> out there.
Did I say anything about "for sure"? I'm not interested in science "knowing
for sure." But if humans are going to form a communal enquiry into the
physical realm they must treat something as having at least a provisional
or formal ontology. Thus your statement shows that you are willing to
distort what I say for your own ends. You were illogical and I caught you
at it. And if you think that humans can form a communal science without
coming to some kind of provisional or stipulated agreement about a communal
ontology then are are doubly illogical. And furthermore, that's clearly not
what is done in "classical realism."
For such an intelligent and educated person as yourself, you sure make
silly truistic statements: "we make theories about what is out there." No
kidding. How about some detail for a change, Ilja. I'm not interested in
your never-ending array of ideological maxims. If you believe that there is
something out there, what is the ultimate ontological representation of
them that the community of scientists should use to communally characterize
these things out there?
I chose ordinary visible objects and observable events because the former
is obviously needed for ordinary human observation and for crafting of
scientific instruments, and the latter for their ultimate simplicity and
lack of irrelevant metaphysics. Science cannot do without observable
events because on this set is where measurements "live." So the starting
point for a communal science is to assume the existence of ordinary visible
objects and observable events. And this ontology seems to me to be in the
intersection of the ontology of every philosophy of physics, including
yours. From there, a physical theory must build everything else. And even
though the set of observable events (i.e., physicality) is not
controversial ontologically in practice, how a theory builds on that set
can be. For on top of physicality the notion of temporal ordering and of
measurement (i.e., the process of using some artifact of human design to
assign numbers to event pairs) is lain.
You didn't actually say you're a classical realist, so I won't assume you
are. But since you appear to defend the realist interpretation of science,
how can a realist deny the literal truth of a scientific theory by saying
"we don't know anything for sure"? Why don't you tell me just what your
philosophy is. You seem like a realist to me from my reading of your GET
paper. Are you some kind of nihilistic realist? Obviously we don't know
anything for sure. We don't even know what "knowing something for sure"
means! But if humans are going to found and operate within a communal
enquiry then they are going to have to reach some communal agreement, and
this means staying away from philosophical extremes. Let's cut to the
point: Can your philosophy of physics do without observable events?
> > We humans get together and decide that as a group we should be able
> > to say something of this morass of events to make some communal
> > sense out of them. We come to an agreement that we all agree on the
> > temporal order of these observable events, at least the temporal
> > order of those observable events that we all have in common.
Or we don't agree. That is, we agree to disagree about the temporal
ordering of observable events, to be more precise.
> Then we
> > decide what else we can agree on. The ultimate unit of irreducible
> > metaphysical objects in our formal view called Science is this
> > simple thing -- the observable event. This really is the irreducible
> > that brings order out of chaos for me.
>
> That's an old and wrong methodological concept named positivism.
> What brings order into the chaos are theories.
You're calling the wrong person a positivist. I'm not. You simply distorted
what I was saying, an all too familiar habit of yours in your reply. One
requirement of a positivist is the total rejection from science of any
unobservable, which I have never advocated. Another illogical conclusion
you made. Are you so arrogant as to deny me my personal opinion of what
brings order out of chaos to me! When I said "This really is the
irreducible that brings order out of chaos for me," I was stating a
personal opinion of what works for me. Your attitude of intolerance is so
typical of realists.
The communal philosophical viewpoint I was promoting, which is fair game
for criticism, I gave in the preceding statements of that paragraph. If you
deny that the ultimate irreducible metaphysical entity in science is the
observable event, then what do you proffer as your choice for the ultimate
irreducible metaphysical concept that science should formally adopt? You
are so typical. Don't actually make specific counter proposals to
statements you disagree with. Just "categorize" them and dismiss them and
go about your smug way.
Let me make an even bolder statement: Every philosophy of physics
consistent with empirical accountability is capable of being formulated
upon the set of all observable events. The observable event is the ultimate
REAL THING that physicists deal with!
How the hell do you justify sitting in absolute judgment on methodologies,
anyway. There is no "right" or "wrong" methodology to science as long as
that methodology is consistent with empirical accountability. There's only
the methodology communally accepted at any given moment. This is one reason
why "realists" are so rejected in the halls of science. They desire to
force the scientific community to accept their personal metaphysical
ideology. Now, my proposed simple metaphysics does not promote more than a
minimal metaphysics and no ideology that's not indispensable anyway. Maybe
that's why the realists hate it so much. It's too generic. It doesn't
pander to their personal belief system about how science is the ultimate
arbiter of truth. But I couldn't say that this is Ilja's view, because Ilja
has a confusing mix of ideologies. I seek only utter ontological simplicity
and a level ideological playing field for all scientists. Of course that's
going to rub the wrong way those people that have an ideological agenda to
enforce on science. The question is, Does that rub Ilja the wrong way? Is
Ilja a scientific pluralist, or does he want to remove the intellectual
freedom in science to propose and adhere to non-"realistic" theories?
Theories help bring order out of chaos but in a strictly anthropomorphic
way. No one can prove that any human theory is uniquely adept at ordering
the chaos. No one can prove that nature gives a damn about our
anthropomorphic variables of length, time, mass, etc. I'm talking about the
logical nature of a scientific theory itself. Thus, we are fools to believe
in the literal truth of any scientific theory.
But no theory will ever bring order to a person if the meaning of a
scientific theory is obscure to that person. Let's all raise our right hand
and swear that we believe in the ontology of ordinary visible objects and
observable events. Big Deal!! We've implicitly done that all along. Then we
are intellectually free to go off and formulate theories telling us how
various observers will temporally order these observable events and control
how that ordering relates among various observers. And how to assign
numbers to theoretical event pairs (measurements), and how those
assignments will transform among various observers and their reference
frames or charts. But the ultimate arbiter of any theory is how well it
matches prediction to physicality, because ultimately a predicted
measurement is the prediction of an observable event pair!
Thus the metaphysical foundation to physical theory as I propose it is not
only simple and uncluttered by irrelevant distractions that the community
of physicists might not agree on, it serves as a clear demarcation between
what is held in common in physics and what a particular theory is
accountable for of itself.
You have a disrespectful way of dismissing the ideas of people by hastily
and falsely categorizing them and then ignoring what they say. Please stop
that.
Patrick
sh...@my-deja.com
> Covariance is part of the implicit definition of a physical law in SR.
> No one can prove that covariance is a property of nature
> or just a property of our anthropomorphic manner of assigning numbers
> to event pairs in a consistent way. Or, are you prepared to prove your
> contrary metaphysical belief?
Strictly, nothing can be "proven" in science. We can note that
our fundamental theories are covariant. If you want to place
human activity on a separate level than nature, be my guest. I'll
just sit here laughing.
> > Covariance is clearly observed
> > to be a property of SR, so I find Ilja's use of terms entirely
> > understandable.
>
> Oh, I find people's use of it "understandable" all right. But
> covariance is a part of SR theory as a willful act of those who
> put it there. The added step of going from a useful theory's models
> to an induction about the TRUTH of the natural realm is an induction
> I'm not allowing for Science proper. Do so within your own natural
> philosophy.
'Truth', huh? And all caps as well. Must be an important concept
for you, since no one else mentioned the word.
> I have read a little of Ilja's paper on GET and I found it
> interesting. I think his notion of the complexity of observing
> events is about the same as my own. So I suspect that we are
> not all that different as you believe us to be.
Ilja is a remarkable figure on this newsgroup, and is the only
etherist around here who acts like he deserves to be taken
seriously. It is instructive that no etherist on this forum
appears to put out any effort to understand GET. I guess it's
just easier for them to avoid the necessary math, while
publishing substandard papers in pseudoscientific journals. I
don't have the background in the math of GR to compare it to GET,
so I've been asking mainly about Ilja's philosophical reasons for
rejecting SR. I haven't found the EPR-realism argument to be
overly convincing, but I'm not really the type he needs to convince,
either.
> > Inventing a goofy term (physicality) for events
> > adds nothing at all.
>
> Why is it goofy?
Predominantly because it will constantly have to be redefined for
people in terms of previously definied words. It sounds like a bunch
of empty philosopher psychobabble.
> > [old college course listing]
> > . "Physics is the science concerned with the fundamental
> > . "properties, laws, and structures common to all forms of
> > . "matter, living and nonliving.
> That's one person's definition. It does not happen to be mine. At
> least it doesn't include any vague terms such as "natural law." Just
> the same, the term "fundamental property" is not well defined within
> this definition. Maybe you can help clear up that definition by
> supplying for us the correct definition of "law" used in that
> definition you presented.
No thanks. You're welcome to argue that one to its death with
faux-philosopher Master Dennis. To me, definitions are created by
usage, and one should peruse the literature of physicists to
understand what the terms mean. It may not always be black
and white, nor even consistent. That's not a problem for me.
Life without gray areas and mysteries sounds like a complete bore.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> My definition is essentially what Bell has used in his proof of Bell's
>> inequality. And Bell's assumptions are often enough referenced as
>> "local realism". All this is also close enough to the EPR criterion
>> of reality.
>
> I dislike any use of "realism" or "reality" in physics because the terms
> are too emotionally overloaded.
Overloaded? Not at all. And what is named "realism" in the
scientific context really deserves some amount of emotion.
My claim is that rejection of realism (the thing I have defined) means
that an important part of the scientific method will be thrown away.
You obviously disagree - but if I'm right, strong emotions would be
justified.
> However, I can see from the psychological point of view how hard it
> is for realists to objectively separate themselves from this
> ideology to practice communal science!
Not at all. I'm realist, but nonetheless (I think) we can agree
almost about everything in current positivistic science.
>> Thus, I don't think that there is much disagreement about the notion
>> of classical realism.
> Only to a classical realist.
The relativists reject the notion of classical realism. If they have
another, weak realism or not - who cares?
>>>> Physicality sounds funny but is in no way helpful for methodological
>>>> discussion.
> I suppose in your philosophy of physics you have no use for
> observable events.
A false supposition. Observations are very useful to falsify
theories.
>> No, we don't know anything for sure, we make theories about what is
>> out there.
> Did I say anything about "for sure"? I'm not interested in science "knowing
> for sure."
Fine. Its a common positivistic error to require certainty and to
assume observation gives certainty.
> But if humans are going to form a communal enquiry into the
> physical realm they must treat something as having at least a provisional
> or formal ontology.
So we can use theories and their predictions for this purpose.
> Thus your statement shows that you are willing to distort what I say
> for your own ends. You were illogical and I caught you at it.
low level ad hominem argumentation.
> And if you think that humans can form a communal science without
> coming to some kind of provisional or stipulated agreement about a communal
> ontology then are are doubly illogical.
Communication is not a fundamental problem. If I understand
something, I can at least in principle explain it to others. Usually
it is a good test if you have really understood something - if you are
able to explain it to others, you have.
> If you believe that there is something out there, what is the
> ultimate ontological representation of them that the community of
> scientists should use to communally characterize these things out
> there?
There is no ultimate ontological representation. A realistic theory
gives an ontological representation. Another realistic theory gives a
different one.
> I chose ordinary visible objects and observable events because the
> former is obviously needed for ordinary human observation and for
> crafting of scientific instruments, and the latter for their
> ultimate simplicity and lack of irrelevant metaphysics.
So, you want to have something theory-independent? Nothing is
theory-independent, and there is no need for theory-independent
notions. We can argue about GET using real ether density and velocity,
and then switch to GR without such animals.
> Science cannot do without observable events because on this set is
> where measurements "live."
And I do not propose such a funny thing as science without
observation.
> So the starting point for a communal science is to assume the
> existence of ordinary visible objects and observable events. And
> this ontology seems to me to be in the intersection of the ontology
> of every philosophy of physics, including yours. From there, a
> physical theory must build everything else.
I assume the existence of ordinary visible objects and observable
events too. But it is in no way a "starting point" from which we
"start to build" theories.
Instead, we create theories in arbitrary, unspecified ways. It does
not matter how theories are created, and there is no algorithm to
create good theories.
What we have are criteria to falsify theories - disagreement with
observation - and other criteria for preference among non-falsified
theories (Poppers criterion, explanatory power, simplicity, beauty).
> You didn't actually say you're a classical realist, so I won't assume you
> are. But since you appear to defend the realist interpretation of science,
> how can a realist deny the literal truth of a scientific theory by saying
> "we don't know anything for sure"?
I don't. What I deny is the notion of "observation" outside of any
theory. Instead, I defend the priority of theory, the thesis that the
theory decides what is observable, and how observations have to be
interpreted.
> You seem like a realist to me from my reading of your GET
> paper. Are you some kind of nihilistic realist?
No, classical Popper, with some minor corrections in direction of Kuhn
and Feyerabend.
> Let's cut to the point: Can your philosophy of physics do without
> observable events?
No, falsification is central.
>>> Then we decide what else we can agree on. The ultimate unit of
>>> irreducible metaphysical objects in our formal view called Science
>>> is this simple thing -- the observable event. This really is the
>>> irreducible that brings order out of chaos for me.
>> That's an old and wrong methodological concept named positivism.
>> What brings order into the chaos are theories.
> You're calling the wrong person a positivist. I'm not.
AFAIU positivism you are, at least partially.
> You simply distorted what I was saying, an all too familiar habit of
> yours in your reply.
Why do you use ad-hominem argumentation? I possibly have
misunderstand your position, but I have no intention to distort what
you are saying.
> One requirement of a positivist is the total rejection from science
> of any unobservable, which I have never advocated.
IMHO the key feature which distinguishs positivism from Popper is
priority of theory vs. priority of observation.
> Another illogical conclusion you made. Are you so arrogant as to
> deny me my personal opinion of what brings order out of chaos to me!
Sorry, feel free to bring order out of chaos to yourself with whatever
you like, many people prefer a religion for this purpose. I have
thought we are talking about the scientific method and your
interpretation how it works, not your personal feelings about world
order.
> Your attitude of intolerance is so typical of realists.
Again ad hominem.
> The communal philosophical viewpoint I was promoting, which is fair game
> for criticism, I gave in the preceding statements of that paragraph. If you
> deny that the ultimate irreducible metaphysical entity in science is the
> observable event, then what do you proffer as your choice for the ultimate
> irreducible metaphysical concept that science should formally adopt?
The theory. What is observable is described by the theory.
> Let me make an even bolder statement: Every philosophy of physics
> consistent with empirical accountability is capable of being formulated
> upon the set of all observable events. The observable event is the ultimate
> REAL THING that physicists deal with!
I cannot see any justification for this proposal.
> How the hell do you justify sitting in absolute judgment on
> methodologies, anyway. There is no "right" or "wrong" methodology to
> science as long as that methodology is consistent with empirical
> accountability.
Circular reasoning. That something has to be consistent with
observation and what this phrase means is methodology. And I think
that the methodology "read the Koran" is false.
> There's only the methodology communally accepted at any given
> moment.
No. What is accepted by current community is not even important if you
want to search for truth.
> Now, my proposed simple metaphysics does not promote more than a
> minimal metaphysics and no ideology that's not indispensable
> anyway. Maybe that's why the realists hate it so much.
No, I don't hate it, it is simply wrong.
> But I couldn't say that this is Ilja's view, because Ilja has a
> confusing mix of ideologies.
Not at all. The essence is Popper. Some minor shift of the point of
view in direction of Kuhn and Feyerabend, that's all (in the
scientific domain).
> Is Ilja a scientific pluralist, or does he want to remove the
> intellectual freedom in science
I'm anarchist, and highly value anarchistic freedom of science.
> Let's all raise our right hand and swear that we believe in the
> ontology of ordinary visible objects and observable events.
No, we don't. I don't believe, for example, in the ontology of an
ordinary visible fata morgana. Instead, I believe into a theory which
tells me that where is no water on the hot street.
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > But if humans are going to form a communal enquiry into the
> > physical realm they must treat something as having at least a provisional
> > or formal ontology.
>
> So we can use theories and their predictions for this purpose.
You want to use a theory as an ontological element?? What is to be served by such
a bizarre re-configuration of standard philosophical terms? When philosophers of
science talk about theories they treat them as objects in their own right. OK.
But scientists doing science are not going to find this useful for their
purposes.
> So, you want to have something theory-independent? Nothing is
> theory-independent, and there is no need for theory-independent
> notions.
I still disagree. Yes, theory has an influence on human observation, but your
view is too extreme for me. The arbitrarily accepted, communally approved ground
rules for what constitutes a physical theory takes precedence over theory.
Besides, if we didn't believe in the prior existence of physicality we'd have no
reason to invent theories to explain it! I must believe that the concept of the
set of all observable events is logically prior to the existence of any
particular theory that would "explain" some subset of them.
But wait! I think I see what you mean. I have to remember your influence from the
classical philosophers, who are not as precise as they could be. What I believe
you're referring to is conventionalism: That all theories are required to conform
to arbitrary conventions. It seem obvious to me that nothing is
convention-independent. And thus theories built on convention-tainted foundation
inherit its dependence on arbitrary human conventions.
> > Science cannot do without observable events because on this set is
> > where measurements "live."
>
> And I do not propose such a funny thing as science without
> observation.
Then you just don't like the term "physicality," not its meaning. If observable
events exist, then the set of all observable events exists, logically speaking. I
have never denied that humans taint the world they see. In fact I have repeatedly
demanded that we take this into account. But your argument against my view is
irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not theory or convention influences our
ability to observe, all that matters is that we are free to define the logical
set of all observable events because that is where we are going to perform
measurements in any case. I certainly agree with you that physicality is
influenced by human foundational conventions, by irrational prejudice, and even
by previously accepted physical theories.
> > So the starting point for a communal science is to assume the
> > existence of ordinary visible objects and observable events. And
> > this ontology seems to me to be in the intersection of the ontology
> > of every philosophy of physics, including yours. From there, a
> > physical theory must build everything else.
>
> I assume the existence of ordinary visible objects and observable
> events too. But it is in no way a "starting point" from which we
> "start to build" theories.
Your dogmatism is showing again: "is in no way". The great anarchist committed to
free inquiry is telling us that we CANNOT start with an ontology of ordinary
visible objects and physicality! Do you really believe that you have given a fair
and honest attempt to consider my statement under every possible interpretation?
Well, it definitely IS a starting point in this sense: We know from the start
that this IS the minimal ontology that every physical theory HAS to address to be
acceptable to the scientific community.
> Instead, we create theories in arbitrary, unspecified ways. It does
> not matter how theories are created, and there is no algorithm to
> create good theories.
I'm not sure we differ on this statement a lot. But science is not merely your
viewpoint or my viewpoint. It is a communal activity that by current definition
cannot be done in the absence of any ground rules. You might wish that to be so,
but in practice it is not. If science requires conformance to empirical
accountability, then obviously a physical theory is not completely arbitrary.
Normally, when one uses the term "arbitrary" in the philosophy of science it is
interpreted as merely arbitrary up to the necessary minimal constraints. So I
don't know what you mean by your statement, because you seem to use terms in a
nonstandard way without stipulating your definitions as you go.
> > You seem like a realist to me from my reading of your GET
> > paper. Are you some kind of nihilistic realist?
>
> No, classical Popper, with some minor corrections in direction of Kuhn
> and Feyerabend.
>
> > Let's cut to the point: Can your philosophy of physics do without
> > observable events?
>
> No, falsification is central.
Then you confirm my statement that physicality is in the intersection of every
good physical theory. And that observable events are in the intersection of the
ontology of every good physical theory. They must exist and be used for a
physical theory to be "good," or at least for a theory to be properly
"scientific" by definition. I used to take measurement as more fundamental than
observable events, but after long reconsideration I changed my view. In practice
they are logically equivalent. (But in theory they are different: It is possible
to conceive of physicality as having only one observable event in it, but that is
not enough to make a measurement on. A measurement requires at least two
observable events.)
> > You're calling the wrong person a positivist. I'm not.
>
> AFAIU positivism you are, at least partially.
Well that's one of the big problems, Ilja, with philosophical labels, isn't it --
there are too many variants of every label for their use to be meaningful. You
must agree because of how you qualified your own characterization of your own
views by listing particular philosophers to associate with, rather than provide a
unique label. So, you are partly a "positivist," partly an "instrumentalist," and
partly a "relativist" yourself. You see, it's not nice to call people names.
I call myself a "relativist," but then again, I call everybody a "relativist." I
also call myself an "instrumentalist," but I'm sure there are some
"instrumentalist" views I don't adhere to.
> > You simply distorted what I was saying, an all too familiar habit of
> > yours in your reply.
>
> Why do you use ad-hominem argumentation?
It is not an ad hominem argument merely to point out bad debating manners an
illogic. I never used my criticisms of your bad manners as a refutation of any of
your arguments. It appears to me that your own argument here is fallacious. I
know, "ad hominem."
> I possibly have
> misunderstand your position, but I have no intention to distort what
> you are saying.
Then ask, don't prejudge. I am fed up with people telling me incorrectly what I
believe!
> > One requirement of a positivist is the total rejection from science
> > of any unobservable, which I have never advocated.
>
> IMHO the key feature which distinguishs positivism from Popper is
> priority of theory vs. priority of observation.
I have to admit that the "priority of theory vs. priority of observation" issue
doesn't seem very important to me. It seems to me to be a relic of another age's
metaphysical debate. I believe that the two work together, of course. But I have
no way to prioritize them in any way meaningful to me. I am satisfied to say
merely that observation and theory are not totally independent of each other, and
as such form a package deal that must be judged in total.
> > The communal philosophical viewpoint I was promoting, which is fair game
> > for criticism, I gave in the preceding statements of that paragraph. If you
> > deny that the ultimate irreducible metaphysical entity in science is the
> > observable event, then what do you proffer as your choice for the ultimate
> > irreducible metaphysical concept that science should formally adopt?
>
> The theory. What is observable is described by the theory.
Another "chicken or egg" paradox. Which came first in human perception, the
observation or the theory to give it meaning? I think it serves the same effect,
without the subtleties, merely to issue the caveat that observation and theory
are interdependent in a nondeterministic way.
You have already admitted that every physical theory contains at least ordinary
visible objects and observable events. So these are a part of the ontology of
every physical theory. No theory has the freedom to dispose of them and be
considered as a good physical theory to the community of scientists.
> > There's only the methodology communally accepted at any given
> > moment.
>
> No. What is accepted by current community is not even important if you
> want to search for truth.
I'm going to make a "face-value" interpretation of your statement and say this: I
don't care at all to search for what you apparently consider as "truth." There
are other truths. I care about those. I care about not fooling myself into
believing that science can tell me any truth at all. If you think it can, please
feel free to prove it for the rest of us. Anarchists should not look for truths
in conventional enquiries. They should instead go out on their own to find truth
where they are free of communal restrictions and conventions.
> > Is Ilja a scientific pluralist, or does he want to remove the
> > intellectual freedom in science
>
> I'm anarchist, and highly value anarchistic freedom of science.
In any case you come off as a dogmatist searching for Truth, ready to sit in
judgment of anyone else's personal views that contradict your own. Yes I know,
"ad hominem."
Science can never be anarchistic by definition. There have to be communally
accepted ground rules -- or you're not doing science. The phrase "anarchistic
freedom of science" is self contradictory. I think I understand where you're
coming from. I just think that your views are unnecessarily extremist. You can
accomplish the same goal without the extremism.
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> But if humans are going to form a communal enquiry into the
>>> physical realm they must treat something as having at least a provisional
>>> or formal ontology.
>>
>> So we can use theories and their predictions for this purpose.
>
> You want to use a theory as an ontological element??
No, the theory defines everything - the ontology, what is observable,
how observations have to be interpreted. There is nothing
theory-independent.
> When philosophers of science talk about theories they treat them as
> objects in their own right. OK. But scientists doing science are
> not going to find this useful for their purposes.
It is useful - scientists have to understand the basic concepts,
to make a reasonable choice between theories.
>> So, you want to have something theory-independent? Nothing is
>> theory-independent, and there is no need for theory-independent
>> notions.
> I still disagree. Yes, theory has an influence on human observation,
> but your view is too extreme for me. The arbitrarily accepted,
> communally approved ground rules for what constitutes a physical
> theory takes precedence over theory.
Of course, the methodology takes precedence over a special theory.
But in some sense it is simply a meta-theory - the theory that
following the rules of the methodology we are able to find something
better than using other rules.
> Besides, if we didn't believe in the prior existence of physicality
> we'd have no reason to invent theories to explain it!
We have a reason - pragmatism. Without making successful predictions
we cannot survive.
> I must believe that the concept of the set of all observable events
> is logically prior to the existence of any particular theory that
> would "explain" some subset of them.
No. I don't believe (I see no such priority relation) but nontheless I
have a nice life.
>> And I do not propose such a funny thing as science without
>> observation.
>
> Then you just don't like the term "physicality," not its meaning.
Of course, there are already terms in use, like experiment and
observation. No need for physicality.
>> I assume the existence of ordinary visible objects and observable
>> events too. But it is in no way a "starting point" from which we
>> "start to build" theories.
>
> Your dogmatism is showing again: "is in no way". The great anarchist committed to
> free inquiry is telling us that we CANNOT start with an ontology of ordinary
> visible objects and physicality!
Misunderstanding - please feel free to start with whatever you like.
> Do you really believe that you have given a fair and honest attempt
> to consider my statement under every possible interpretation?
No, I think if I have misunderstood you you will correct this.
> Well, it definitely IS a starting point in this sense: We know from
> the start that this IS the minimal ontology that every physical
> theory HAS to address to be acceptable to the scientific community.
Fine.
>> Instead, we create theories in arbitrary, unspecified ways. It does
>> not matter how theories are created, and there is no algorithm to
>> create good theories.
> I'm not sure we differ on this statement a lot. But science is not
> merely your viewpoint or my viewpoint. It is a communal activity
> that by current definition cannot be done in the absence of any
> ground rules.
But the ground rules are not about the way theories have to be
created. They are about the evaluation of the theories presented.
> You might wish that to be so, but in practice it is not. If science
> requires conformance to empirical accountability, then obviously a
> physical theory is not completely arbitrary.
But the way of creation is. You can see the formula in your dream -
this does not make the formula worse.
>> AFAIU positivism you are, at least partially.
> Well that's one of the big problems, Ilja, with philosophical
> labels, isn't it -- there are too many variants of every label for
> their use to be meaningful.
That there are many variants I agree. Not that this makes their use
meaningless. There are many variants for almost every word, except
may be some standard mathematical definitions. But talking is
meaningful.
> So, you are partly a "positivist," partly an "instrumentalist," and
> partly a "relativist" yourself. You see, it's not nice to call
> people names.
I'm not offended, but I don't think this characterization is helpful
to understand my position. Except, partially, instrumentalist.
>> IMHO the key feature which distinguishs positivism from Popper is
>> priority of theory vs. priority of observation.
>
> I have to admit that the "priority of theory vs. priority of observation" issue
> doesn't seem very important to me. It seems to me to be a relic of another age's
> metaphysical debate. I believe that the two work together, of course.
There is a difference between "theory is observation-dependend"
(wrong, positivism) and "observation is theory-dependend" (Popper).
It is the theory which defines what is observable (Einstein).
>> The theory. What is observable is described by the theory.
>
> Another "chicken or egg" paradox. Which came first in human perception, the
> observation or the theory to give it meaning?
It is not chicken or egg. Theories without observation are theories
(even if they are completely off and metaphysical only), but there is
no such animal as an observation without theory.
>> What is accepted by current community is not even important if you
>> want to search for truth.
> I'm going to make a "face-value" interpretation of your statement
> and say this: I don't care at all to search for what you apparently
> consider as "truth." There are other truths. I care about those. I
> care about not fooling myself into believing that science can tell
> me any truth at all. If you think it can, please feel free to prove
> it for the rest of us.
I think it can, but I do not even try to prove it to you.
> Anarchists should not look for truths in conventional
> enquiries. They should instead go out on their own to find truth
> where they are free of communal restrictions and conventions.
Anarchists do what they think is useful for them. If looking for
truth in conventional enquiries seems useful, they can do it very
well.
>> I'm anarchist, and highly value anarchistic freedom of science.
> In any case you come off as a dogmatist searching for Truth, ready
> to sit in judgment of anyone else's personal views that contradict
> your own.
Feel free not to search for truth. Feel free not to judge and to
ignore my judgements. I'm searching for truth because I like it, and
make judgements because without making them you never find a truth.
> Science can never be anarchistic by definition.
Science is anarchy. There is no government in science.
> There have to be communally accepted ground rules -- or you're not
> doing science.
Or the community has accepted bad rules.
> I think I understand where you're coming from. I just think that
> your views are unnecessarily extremist. You can accomplish the same
> goal without the extremism.
I don't think so. I prefer to make clear statements, which makes it
easier to criticize them, to find out their faults. I'm interested to
find out such faults, therefore it is helpful for me to present them
in an extremal way.
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > Then you just don't like the term "physicality," not its meaning.
>
> Of course, there are already terms in use, like experiment and
> observation. No need for physicality.
But neither of those terms is a replacement for the set of all observable events. How
do you define a measurement?
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> Then you just don't like the term "physicality," not its meaning.
>>
>> Of course, there are already terms in use, like experiment and
>> observation. No need for physicality.
> But neither of those terms is a replacement for the set of all
> observable events.
And there is no need for this animal.
> How do you define a measurement?
I don't. The theory defines measurement.