Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

O'Barr 2 May 2000: the ether theory.

1 view

Skip to first unread message

GLOBARR

unread,

May 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/2/00

O'Barr 2 May 2000: the ether theory.

The Ether Theory
(The O'Barr Absolute Reference Frame Concept)

The ether theory, in its simplest terms, can be based
on three simple physical assumptions.

In free ether space:
1. Light has an absolute constant speed of c.
2. The length of a ruler, Lv, in the direction of its
absolute velocity, v, is

Lv = Lo * SQRT(1 - vv/cc) 1)

where Lo is its rest length.

3. The rate of a clock, Rv, with an absolute velocity of
v, is

Rv = Ro * SQRT(1 - vv/cc) 2)

where Ro is its rest rate.

With these three simple physical assumptions, we
would have a reality where any person could
scientifically hypothesize and accept the theory or
mathematics of Special Relativity (SR).

This ether theory is the final ether theory that was
presented by Lorentz. On this net, we call it "LET,"
Lorentz's Ether Theory. As I present it, I make a
specific effort to present first its physical concepts.
By doing this, we put the physical in full control of the
math. This emphases its uniqueness or difference with
SR, which does not have sufficient physical concepts to
give full definition to its math, or provide any physical
limits or controls to its math.
The ether is assumed to be a physical medium. The
motion of light (and this infers electromagnetic
transmissions for all frequencies) involves a physical
process within this medium. And thus the speed is
independent of the motion of all sources. "Rulers" refer
to all physical objects that have physical extension in
space. And "clocks" refer to all physical dynamic
processes.
Once the physical acts are clearly understood, then
the math can be considered. The math transforms can then
be presented, and understood. Using this approach, the
physical reality determines the math, and limits the
math. It gives interpretation to the math, and always
does so with only one possible interpretation at all
times.
The presenting of things with a physical base allows
for physical causes. In all ways, the physical
presentation allows for clear and direct comprehension
and understanding of everything that occurs. Such things
do not and cannot exist when only a math approach is
used.

Now exactly how impossible are the three assumptions
of the ether theory? There is nothing basically
difficult about assuming that there is an ether.
Einstein himself said it was "unthinkable" or impossible
not to have an ether. It would be physically impossible
to have the speed of light independent of its source
unless there was a local reference to control it. And
since all motions of light are the same, they must all
have access to that same `local' reference. There is no
other way that such things can be done.
All physical rulers are made of atoms or molecules.
The length of such rulers is dependent on the equilibrium
positions within the electromagnetic fields between these
atoms. The best understanding we have of these fields
include the acts of virtual photons. Thus these fields
are themselves based upon `objects' that have a constant
absolute velocity in the ether. Thus, any over-all
motion in the ether would be expected to affect those
forces due to that motion. Any motion of a ruler through
the ether should affect its equilibrium positions, and
thus the length, of that ruler.
Even in Lorentz's day, their understanding of E&M was
sufficient that Lorentz could show that the equilibrium
changes for a spherical charge would produce a ratio
change of SQRT(1-vv/cc). Although Lorentz was too
careful of a scientist to say that this would produce
that specific change in length for conditions that were
not his one special case, today we can be less careful!
We have results to support such conclusions. It is not
rash at all for us to accept equation 1). In fact, not
to accept equation 1) would now be unscientific!
Once we accept equation 1), we can see that equation
2) becomes automatic. The dynamic actions of all objects
involve objects with interacting charges that are based
on field particles with fixed absolute velocities. Thus
the rates of all dynamic actions would be expected to be
vary due to these affects. The analysis of a simple
light clock would instantly show us the effect, and
equation 2) is instantly established.
And thus every assumption of the ether is not only
easy to make, we are driven to these results by what we
know and by what we see and measure. They are most
natural, and they provide us with the simplest explanations
and the simplest physics.

I invite all to consider the superiority of the ether
approach. It provides to us all that is missing in SR.
It provides us with no weaknesses. The ether makes every
correct prediction that is made in SR. There is no one
thing that is lost, and everything that is gained, by
using the ether approach!

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!

Daniel Weston

unread,

May 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/2/00

To O'Barr and aether theory.

How does your aether theory evolve into something indistinguishable from
_SR_.

Or does it?

Daniel Weston

GLOBARR

unread,

May 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/2/00

In <12675-39...@storefull-118.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

<dani...@webtv.net> (Daniel Weston) wrote:
>
> To O'Barr and aether theory.
>
> How does your aether theory evolve into something
> indistinguishable from _SR_.
>
> Or does it?

O'Barr comments:
You probably were wanting to know how it can become
distinguishable, not `indistinguishable.' Since the correct
ether concept has the identical math as SR, I believe that
they are in fact the same theory! The ether provides the
correct physical base to our reality, and SR is just the
correct math to the physical base. If we want to only be
mathematicians, we can stay with just the math, and be O.K.,
as mathematicians. But to be a good physicist, we cannot
ignore the physical.
At the present time, we have no experimental evidence of
any difference, at least as far as we have so far consider
these things. But look at the differences in how we would
think!!!!!!!:::::

With the ether theory, we would know that reality was
based upon the simplest of physics. We would know, that at
the heart of reality, was simple 3-D space, and simple and
independent 1-D time. We would know that absolute velocities
could be added with and in simple and straight foreword
vector addition operations, and the simplest of Galilean
geometry was all that was necessary. We would know that
there is never any true back-in-time acts, even if infinite
velocities existed. There would be no Voodoo, for there
would be physical causes that could be offered for every act,
and everything that was seen and observed could be exactly
and perfectly explained in every physical detail that would
be required or desired.

But if we stayed with SR, we would have to believe in
Voodoo. We would have to believe in physically impossible 4-
D spacetime continuums. We would have to believe in jumps in
time (time can be directly `exchanged' with space, etc.) We
would have to believe that there are changes, because we do
observe changes, and yet, by theory, there are no changes,
since everything is just a change in perspective. We end up
with no ability to say exactly what really happens, even
theoretically. We are left with only correct answers, but no
way to interpret the reasons why such answers occur!

Now does any of this make a difference to you? If you
are a true and dyed-in-the-wool mathematician, you would
ignore what I say and stay with what you think is
mathematically the simplest! To you, you would not care if
you believed in Voodoo as long as it worked. You would not
care if 4-D spacetime was only a math aid to provide you with
correct answers. Even though no direct evidence exists (or
will ever exist, if the ether is correct) that shows that
there is a real 4-D spacetime continuum, it will not matter
to you as a mathematician. You only care if it works!!!!!
So what about it, Daniel Weston? I know where I stand.
How about you???? How about everyone on this net? We will
all have to make this very important decision, and it just as
well be now!

Thanks!!!!!!!!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/3/00

GLOBARR wrote:

> O'Barr 2 May 2000: the ether theory.
>
> The Ether Theory
> (The O'Barr Absolute Reference Frame Concept)
>

> This ether theory is the final ether theory that was
> presented by Lorentz. On this net, we call it "LET,"
> Lorentz's Ether Theory.

> .. I invite all to consider the superiority of the ether

> approach. It provides to us all that is missing in SR.
> It provides us with no weaknesses. The ether makes every
> correct prediction that is made in SR. There is no one
> thing that is lost, and everything that is gained, by
> using the ether approach!

OK. Firstly it is well known and agreed that LET produces the same
experimental results as SR thus the only objections to it are
philosophical.

Here is my personal comparison of the two theories

LET: Space has 3 dimensions and is Euclidean. Time is a separate single
dimension.

SR: Spacetime has 4 dimensions and is Lorentzian.

Winner LET

SR There is no aether.

LET There is an aether which pervades all space and is rigid but allows
massive bodies to pass freely through it. There is no way to measure
the speed of a body relative to the aether.

Winner SR

SR: The proper length of a rod, which is easily measured, represents a
genuine physical quality of the rod.

LET: The real length of a rod can never be measured as there is no way
of knowing its speed through the aether. The distances that we measure
on earth are (almost certainly) not the true values.

Winner SR

SR: Simultaneity of spacelike separated events depends on the frame of
reference from which they are observed.

LET: Simultaneity of events is absolute but the aether distorts all
clocks so that it appears to depend on the frame of reference from which
the events are observed.

Draw

SR: Proper time, which is easily measured, represents a real measure of
elapsed time for an object.

LET: Absolute time exists but there is no way of measuring it. The
times that we measure on earth are (almost certainly) wrong due to our
likely motion through the aether.

Winner SR

SR: The length change of rods in motion is due to the nature of
measurement in spacetime. This explains, at a stroke, why all materials
are measured to shrink by the same amount.

LET: The length change of rods is a real physical process but there are
no detailed explanations of how this occurs. In particular there is no
proper theory to explain why all substances (solid, liquid, gas, plasma)
are all contracted by exactly the same amount.

Winner SR

SR: The slowing if clocks in motion is due to the nature of measurement
in spacetime. This is why all types of clock are equally affected.

LET: The slowing of clocks is a real physical effect. There is no
theory to explain why clocks using completely different mechanisms
(pendulum, quartz, caesium, biological, decay of fundamental particles)
are all affected by exactly the same amount.

Winner SR

SR: SR can be extended to produce an elegant theory of gravity.

LET: No generally accepted theory of gravity has been produced from LET

Winner SR

Finally SR is the theory taught to physicists throughout the world. I
have never seen kinematic calculations based on LET but those based on
SR are relatively simple once the concepts are grasped. I would expect
that an LET method would be taught to physicists purely as a
mathematical technique to solve SR problems if it were simpler than SR.
I have never heard of this and conclude, therefore, that the maths of
LET is more complicated.

For the above reasons I prefer Relativity, but I try to keep an open
mind.

Martin Hogbin

GLOBARR

unread,

May 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/3/00

In <390F66F4...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
> O'Barr 2 May 2000: the ether theory.
>
> The Ether Theory
> (The O'Barr Absolute Reference Frame Concept)
>
> This ether theory is the final ether theory that was
> presented by Lorentz. On this net, we call it "LET,"

> Lorentz's Ether Theory. . . .

> ... I invite all to consider the superiority of the ether

Martin Hogbin wrote:
OK. Firstly it is well known and agreed that LET produces the
same experimental results as SR thus the only objections to it
are philosophical.

O'Barr comments:
I believe this is a good start. However, some of your
statements below appear to be more than just philosophical.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Here is my personal comparison of the two theories
LET: Space has 3 dimensions and is Euclidean. Time is a
separate single dimension.
SR: Spacetime has 4 dimensions and is Lorentzian.
Winner LET

O'Barr comments:
Let me congratulate you on this. It seems impossible for
SR experts (all but you?) to allow any area to be seen as an
advantage for the ether. Even for these obvious areas! Thank
you for at least being able to say this one thing is good for
the ether.
And let me ask you, do you think the differences here are
just philosophical? What we have here is so important that it
might just over-ride everything else, could it not????

Martin Hogbin wrote:
SR: There is no aether.
LET: There is an aether which pervades all space and is
rigid but allows massive bodies to pass freely through it.
There is no way to measure the speed of a body relative to the
aether.
Winner SR

O'Barr comments:
There certainly are unanswered questions in the ether
approach. However, these unanswered questions do not directly
impact the theory. They do not produce any doubt in what the
theory does, or on the results. They mostly show that we just
do not know everything. And just to ignore the problem, as is
done in SR, does not really mean that SR is better.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
SR: The proper length of a rod, which is easily measured,
represents a genuine physical quality of the rod.
LET: The real length of a rod can never be measured as
there is no way of knowing its speed through the aether. The
distances that we measure on earth are (almost certainly) not
the true values.
Winner SR

O'Barr comments:
One thing that can be said with certainty, is that the
proper length that SR measures would be the length that the
ether would measure in the ether frame. Therefore, I do not
understand your concerns here! All measurements are
scientific, in both theories, and just as valid as the other.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
SR: Simultaneity of spacelike separated events depends on
the frame of reference from which they are observed.
LET: Simultaneity of events is absolute but the aether
distorts all clocks so that it appears to depend on the frame
of reference from which the events are observed.
Draw

O'Barr comments:
As originally presented by Einstein, simultaneity concepts
were superior in SR. Today, we can understand both points of
views equally well.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
SR: Proper time, which is easily measured, represents a real
measure of elapsed time for an object.
LET: Absolute time exists but there is no way of measuring
it. The times that we measure on earth are (almost certainly)
wrong due to our likely motion through the aether.
Winner SR

O'Barr comments:
I am not against there being many ways in which SR is
`superior' to the ether approach. However, to really
understand these comparisons requires one to separate out the
physical differences from the math differences, and, as you
mentioned, the philosophical differences. These are not all
the same, and they definitely are not equal to each other.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
SR: The length change of rods in motion is due to the nature
of measurement in spacetime. This explains, at a stroke, why
all materials are measured to shrink by the same amount.
LET: The length change of rods is a real physical process
but there are no detailed explanations of how this occurs. In
particular there is no proper theory to explain why all
substances (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) are all contracted by
exactly the same amount.
Winner SR

O'Barr comments:
Your argument sounds like this: There are two boys, and you
want to find out who is the neatest. One boy eats a big bowel
of ice cream and gets one small drop on his shirt. The other
boy eats nothing and was of course perfectly clean. So which
boy really ends up being the neatest boy?
Voodoo really is neat! It results in everything being the
same because there are no causes at all, to cause anything to
be different! So how can this weakness be an advantage? Only
if you want to be blind and not have even any potential
physical causes.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
SR: The slowing if clocks in motion is due to the nature of
measurement in spacetime. This is why all types of clock are
equally affected.
LET: The slowing of clocks is a real physical effect. There
is no theory to explain why clocks using completely different
mechanisms (pendulum, quartz, caesium, biological, decay of
fundamental particles) are all affected by exactly the same
amount.
Winner SR

O'Barr comments:
These are good points. I do not want to indicate that they
are not valid and important points. But again, these are
points that are just as important for SR. In the ether there
are potential causes for most if not all these `clocks.' In
SR, you do not have any physical cause that can be directly
presented! There is no direct evidence at all for your
spacetime geometric approach being real. It stands totally
unprovable, and thus is Voodoo even at its very best!

Martin Hogbin wrote:
SR: SR can be extended to produce an elegant theory of
gravity.
LET: No generally accepted theory of gravity has been
produced from LET
Winner SR

O'Barr comments:
As things presently stand, I give you full acceptance of
this position. However, we should be careful in these areas.
GR is more in need of an ether than SR. And this was
acknowledged by Einstein himself. And we should also be aware
of the differences in difficulties between these acts. Having
a correct math is often easy, and has often been done in our
physics. But having the correct physical explanations with
the math has not always followed the math. The at theory
will, however, be of some help to us in helping the physical
catch up with the math!

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Finally SR is the theory taught to physicists throughout
the world. I have never seen kinematic calculations based on
LET but those based on SR are relatively simple once the
concepts are grasped. I would expect that an LET method would
be taught to physicists purely as a mathematical technique to
solve SR problems if it were simpler than SR. I have never
heard of this and conclude, therefore, that the maths of
LET is more complicated.
For the above reasons I prefer Relativity, but I try to
keep an open mind.

O'Barr comments:
And what a refreshing post, to actually see an open minded
discussion. I am sure that I did not do it justice. But if
we really did start to do this, I am sure that we could
develop a set of conclusions that would help us all understand
the problem better! Thank you for your post! I hope that
we will see more of such posts! And we should both start
to see better answers in all these areas!!!!!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/4/00

> > ... I invite all to consider the superiority of the ether
> > approach. It provides to us all that is missing in SR.
> > It provides us with no weaknesses. The ether makes every
> > correct prediction that is made in SR. There is no one
> > thing that is lost, and everything that is gained, by
> > using the ether approach!
>
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> Here is my personal comparison of the two theories

> <comparison snipped>

>
> O'Barr comments:

>
> And let me ask you, do you think the differences here are
> just philosophical? What we have here is so important that it
> might just over-ride everything else, could it not????
>

> However, to really
> understand these comparisons requires one to separate out the
> physical differences from the math differences, and, as you
> mentioned, the philosophical differences. These are not all
> the same, and they definitely are not equal to each other.
>
>

> Voodoo really is neat! It results in everything being the
> same because there are no causes at all, to cause anything to
> be different! So how can this weakness be an advantage? Only
> if you want to be blind and not have even any potential
> physical causes.
>

> There is no direct evidence at all for your
> spacetime geometric approach being real. It stands totally
> unprovable, and thus is Voodoo even at its very best!
>

> Having
> a correct math is often easy, and has often been done in our
> physics. But having the correct physical explanations with
> the math has not always followed the math. The at theory
> will, however, be of some help to us in helping the physical
> catch up with the math!
>

I have collected together some of your comments for me to respond to.
They all seem to be referring to the same idea; some concepts represent
physical 'reality' whilst some do not.

If you asked me whether I was sure that world _really_ consisted of
Lorentzian spacetime I would answer 'no'. But I would question your
reasons for believing that we _really_ live in three dimension space.
This is just as much a mathematical abstraction as spacetime, it is just
that you learned about it at an earlier age and had more time to get
used to it.

Finally, the reason LET will not gain widespread acceptance is that it
has missed the boat. Relativity answers all the questions except those
involving the quantum world. Now, if you can come up with a
mathematically sound aether theory that includes quantum mechanics you
can have your aether back.

Martin Hogbin

GLOBARR

unread,

May 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/5/00

In <3911EDEF...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> > ... I invite all to consider the superiority of the ether
> > approach. It provides to us all that is missing in SR.
> > It provides us with no weaknesses. The ether makes every
> > correct prediction that is made in SR. There is no one
> > thing that is lost, and everything that is gained, by
> > using the ether approach!
>
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> Here is my personal comparison of the two theories

MH: <comparison snipped>

GLO: O'Barr comments (presented out of context):

> And let me ask you, do you think the differences here are
> just philosophical? What we have here is so important that
> it might just over-ride everything else, could it not????

> However, to really understand these
> comparisons requires one to separate out the
> physical differences from the math differences, and, as you
> mentioned, the philosophical differences. These are not all
> the same, and they definitely are not equal to each other.

> Voodoo really is neat! It results in everything being the
> same because there are no causes at all, to cause anything
> to be different! So how can this weakness be an advantage?
> Only if you want to be blind and not have even any
> potential physical causes.

> There is no direct evidence at all for your
> spacetime geometric approach being real. It stands totally
> unprovable, and thus is Voodoo even at its very best!

> Having
> a correct math is often easy, and has often been done in our
> physics. But having the correct physical explanations with
> the math has not always followed the math. The at theory
> will, however, be of some help to us in helping the physical
> catch up with the math!
>

Martin Hogbin wrote:
I have collected together some of your comments for me to
respond to. They all seem to be referring to the same idea;
some concepts represent physical 'reality' whilst some do not.
If you asked me whether I was sure that world _really_
consisted of Lorentzian spacetime I would answer 'no'. But I
would question your reasons for believing that we _really_
live in three dimension space. This is just as much a
mathematical abstraction as spacetime, it is just that you
learned about it at an earlier age and had more time to get
used to it.

O'Barr comments:
ROTFL!!!! You cannot be serious!!! Simple 3-D space can
be a geometrical concept. But even as a geometric concept, it
does not interfere with anything in our reality. It, in fact,
allows all objects to exist and to move with no physical
effect! Therefore, it is not the same as SR spacetime
geometry! And therefore, it is superior. It does not
require Voodoo! It is logical and possible and realistic and
natural. And you are a fool if you are not man enough to say
this! It has nothing to do with what was seen first, it has
to do with common sense, and having physical causes for
physical effects. Using geometry as a simple bookkeeping tool
is not the same as using geometry to cause changes in results,
or even in changes in the appearance of things! Just because
you can apply the same set of words to two different things do
not make them equal. If there is any `abstractions' going on
here, it is easy to see who has been schnooked!!!!!!

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Finally, the reason LET will not gain widespread acceptance
is that it has missed the boat. Relativity answers all the
questions except those involving the quantum world. Now, if
you can come up with a mathematically sound aether theory that
includes quantum mechanics you can have your aether back.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, without the ether doing anything more, it is
now superior to SR! You must not have read a single thing
that I posted. The ether has the same math as SR. It makes
the same predictions as SR. There is no way that SR can be
superior. But the ether provides more than just the math.
And with the physical that is added by the ether, we gain
physical explanations. The ether even explains SR. (But SR
certainly does not explain the ether. Why SR cannot even
explain itself!!!!!) And we now have the potential of having
physical causes for everything that occurs. Therefore, your
SR approach is simply dead!
What you do not seem to understand is that this is the year
2000. This is not 1905! You do not have one single evidence
to accept SR over the ether. You cannot accept SR based on
any evidence what-so-ever!!!! You have been told a bunch of
lies, and the SR FAQ is still using these lies! Every fact
that we now have, indicates that we have an absolute reference
frame, and no scientific person can refute this! To accept SR
over the ether can only be a personal choice, and it is clear
that it is the weaker choice!!!
I am sorry if you missed the importance of some of this,
but I am sure you can come up to speed!

Thank you for responding!

xxein

unread,

May 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/5/00

In article <3911EDEF...@hogbin.org.uk>,

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > > ... I invite all to consider the superiority of the ether
> > > approach. It provides to us all that is missing in SR.
> > > It provides us with no weaknesses. The ether makes every
> > > correct prediction that is made in SR. There is no one
> > > thing that is lost, and everything that is gained, by
> > > using the ether approach!
> >
> > Martin Hogbin wrote:
> > Here is my personal comparison of the two theories

> > <comparison snipped>
>
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> >

> > And let me ask you, do you think the differences here are
> > just philosophical? What we have here is so important that it
> > might just over-ride everything else, could it not????
> >

> > However, to really
> > understand these comparisons requires one to separate out the
> > physical differences from the math differences, and, as you
> > mentioned, the philosophical differences. These are not all
> > the same, and they definitely are not equal to each other.
> >
> >

> > Voodoo really is neat! It results in everything being the
> > same because there are no causes at all, to cause anything to
> > be different! So how can this weakness be an advantage? Only
> > if you want to be blind and not have even any potential
> > physical causes.
> >

> > There is no direct evidence at all for your
> > spacetime geometric approach being real. It stands totally
> > unprovable, and thus is Voodoo even at its very best!
> >

> > Having
> > a correct math is often easy, and has often been done in our
> > physics. But having the correct physical explanations with
> > the math has not always followed the math. The at theory
> > will, however, be of some help to us in helping the physical
> > catch up with the math!
> >
>

> I have collected together some of your comments for me to respond to.
> They all seem to be referring to the same idea; some concepts
represent
> physical 'reality' whilst some do not.
>
> If you asked me whether I was sure that world _really_ consisted of
> Lorentzian spacetime I would answer 'no'. But I would question your
> reasons for believing that we _really_ live in three dimension
space.
> This is just as much a mathematical abstraction as spacetime, it is
just
> that you learned about it at an earlier age and had more time to get
> used to it.
>

> Finally, the reason LET will not gain widespread acceptance is that it
> has missed the boat. Relativity answers all the questions except
those
> involving the quantum world. Now, if you can come up with a
> mathematically sound aether theory that includes quantum mechanics you
> can have your aether back.
>

> Martin Hogbin
>
> I do not defend O'barr's specific comments but you speak from a
believer's world; that from your own indoctrination. If you were truly
objective about the matter, you would not dismiss paradox being covered
over by invented math. Gravity, if you like it or not, is rife with
paradox from relativity. It does not recognize simultaniety unless it
is measured by speed of light transmission for you to see it. More
later.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/8/00

>
>
> [Hogbin]

> I have collected together some of your comments for me to
> respond to. They all seem to be referring to the same idea;
> some concepts represent physical 'reality' whilst some do not.
> If you asked me whether I was sure that world _really_
> consisted of Lorentzian spacetime I would answer 'no'. But I
> would question your reasons for believing that we _really_
> live in three dimension space. This is just as much a
> mathematical abstraction as spacetime, it is just that you
> learned about it at an earlier age and had more time to get
> used to it.
>

> [O'Barr]

> ROTFL!!!! You cannot be serious!!! Simple 3-D space can
> be a geometrical concept. But even as a geometric concept, it
> does not interfere with anything in our reality.

3-D space _is_ a mathematical concept and if it accurately described the
world that we live in it would be a better concept than SR spacetime,
because it is simpler. But it is nevertheless a mathematical concept.
Ask a young child (or for that matter many adults) how many dimensions
there are and why and you will see that 3-D space is not so obvious as
you think. It took people like Euclid and Descartes (and many others)
to come up with a mathematical description of what '3-dimensions'
means. What happens is that you are taught that that space is 3-D and
your subsequent experience confirms that this is a useful concept that
agrees with experiment. It therefore becomes 'reality'.

> [O'Barr]

> It, in fact,
> allows all objects to exist and to move with no physical
> effect! Therefore, it is not the same as SR spacetime
> geometry! And therefore, it is superior. It does not
> require Voodoo! It is logical and possible and realistic and
> natural. And you are a fool if you are not man enough to say
> this! It has nothing to do with what was seen first, it has
> to do with common sense, and having physical causes for
> physical effects. Using geometry as a simple bookkeeping tool
> is not the same as using geometry to cause changes in results,
> or even in changes in the appearance of things!

[Hogbin]
Let me just restate the points we agree on:

SR and LET are accurate mathematical descriptions of the physical world
(without gravity)

Euclidean space is a simpler concept than SR space time.

SR can be used as the basis of a theory of gravity.

On the rest we will have to agree to differ.

> [O'Barr]

> Just because
> you can apply the same set of words to two different things do
> not make them equal. If there is any `abstractions' going on
> here, it is easy to see who has been schnooked!!!!!!

>
> [Hogbin]

> Finally, the reason LET will not gain widespread acceptance
> is that it has missed the boat.

> O'Barr comments:

> I am sorry, without the ether doing anything more, it is
> now superior to SR!

[Hogbin]

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not saying that one
theory was superior to another. I was explaining why you will never
persuade mainstream science to embrace LET. This is just the way things
are.

If you really want physicists to use an aether theory you must come up
with one that is compatible with QM. Then you will have them queuing
up.

GLOBARR

unread,

May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00

In <39171E93...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Ref: <3911EDEF...@hogbin.org.uk>
<20000504225051...@ng-fz1.aol.com>

>
> [Hogbin]
> I have collected together some of your comments for me
> to respond to. They all seem to be referring to the same
> idea; some concepts represent physical 'reality' whilst
> some do not.
> If you asked me whether I was sure that world _really_
> consisted of Lorentzian spacetime I would answer 'no'. But
> I would question your reasons for believing that we
> _really_ live in three dimension space. This is just as
> much a mathematical abstraction as spacetime, it is just
> that you learned about it at an earlier age and had more
> time to get used to it.
>

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:

> ROTFL!!! You cannot be serious!!! Simple 3-D space can

> be a geometrical concept. But even as a geometric concept,

> it does not interfere with anything in our reality. . . .

Martin Hogbin wrote:
3-D space _is_ a mathematical concept and if it accurately
described the world that we live in it would be a better

concept than SR spacetime, because it is simpler. . . .

O'Barr comments:
Things said even up to here seems funny to me. I believe
that our 3-D concept is both a reality and a math concept.
And if our reality were 3-D, then we might want to use a 3-D
geometry even if it were or were not simpler. Do I read into
your words above more than I should? Did you really mean to
infer that 3-D is only a math concept? Did you really mean
to infer that you worship simplicity, and that everything
that is the most simplest will always be superior?

Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .

But it is nevertheless a mathematical concept.
Ask a young child (or for that matter many adults) how many
dimensions there are and why and you will see that 3-D space
is not so obvious as you think. It took people like Euclid
and Descartes (and many others) to come up with a
mathematical description of what '3-dimensions' means. What
happens is that you are taught that that space is 3-D and
your subsequent experience confirms that this is a useful
concept that agrees with experiment. It therefore becomes
'reality'.

O'Barr comments:
It certainly has become my reality. But are you saying
that it is only based on what I have been told? Are you
saying that everything we believe is determined by what
others have told us? If this is all true, then it appears
that we do not need a reality at all!!!!!

O'Barr worte (about simple 3-D geometry):

> It, in fact,
> allows all objects to exist and to move with no physical
> effect! Therefore, it is not the same as SR spacetime
> geometry! And therefore, it is superior. It does not
> require Voodoo! It is logical and possible and realistic
> and natural. And you are a fool if you are not man enough
> to say this! It has nothing to do with what was seen
> first, it has to do with common sense, and having physical
> causes for physical effects. Using geometry as a simple
> bookkeeping tool is not the same as using geometry to cause
> changes in results, or even in changes in the appearance of
> things!

[Hogbin]
Let me just restate the points we agree on:

SR and LET are accurate mathematical descriptions of the
physical world (without gravity)

Euclidean space is a simpler concept than SR space time.
SR can be used as the basis of a theory of gravity.
On the rest we will have to agree to differ.

O'Barr comments:
Why do I feel this urge to restate all this? You said:
`SR and LET are accurate mathematical descriptions of the
physical world (without gravity).' This is fine!!!
You said: `Euclidean space is a simpler concept than SR space
time.' This is fine!!!!! But then you said: `SR can be
used as the basis of a theory of gravity.' I do not accept
SR as being anything to do with gravity. If you want to say
that SR led to GR, you are mistaken. Certainly SR preceded
GR, and GR had to reduce to SR, but I would find it difficult
to make SR directly produce GR!

> [O'Barr]
> Just because you can
> apply the same set of words to two different things do
> not make them equal. If there is any `abstractions' going
> on here, it is easy to see who has been schnooked!!!!!!

>
> [Hogbin]
> Finally, the reason LET will not gain widespread
> acceptance is that it has missed the boat.

> O'Barr comments:
> I am sorry, without the ether doing anything more, it is
> now superior to SR!

[Hogbin]
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not saying
that one theory was superior to another. I was explaining
why you will never persuade mainstream science to embrace
LET. This is just the way things are.

O'Barr comments:
Maybe I did misunderstand you. And it does appear at
times that SR experts will not respond to the higher thinking
that is needed to see the superiority of the ether. But I do
have a lot of confidence in people, and I believe that it is
going to occur!!!!!

Martin Hogbin wrote:
If you really want physicists to use an aether theory you
must come up with one that is compatible with QM. Then you
will have them queuing up.

O'Barr comments:
Certainly you are correct in this. If we ever ended up
measuring our absolute velocity, or in producing an ether
with more in it than in GR, we would be forced to accept it.
But I also believe we should not have to be forced to do any
of this. We should have the ability to see it now!!!!

Thanks for your comments!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00

[Hogbin]
Yes.

[O'Barr]

> Did you really mean
> to infer that you worship simplicity, and that everything
> that is the most simplest will always be superior?

[Hogbin]
If there are two theories both of which agree withe experiment, I would
generally prefer the simpler. But I accept that simplicity is to a
degree subjective.

>
>
> Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .
> But it is nevertheless a mathematical concept.
> Ask a young child (or for that matter many adults) how many
> dimensions there are and why and you will see that 3-D space
> is not so obvious as you think. It took people like Euclid
> and Descartes (and many others) to come up with a
> mathematical description of what '3-dimensions' means. What
> happens is that you are taught that that space is 3-D and
> your subsequent experience confirms that this is a useful
> concept that agrees with experiment. It therefore becomes
> 'reality'.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> It certainly has become my reality. But are you saying
> that it is only based on what I have been told?

[Hogbin]
Yes, that and what you have experienced or, if you are a scientist,
measured.

> Are you
> saying that everything we believe is determined by what
> others have told us? If this is all true, then it appears
> that we do not need a reality at all!!!!!
>

[Hogbin]
We are moving into the realm of philosophy here if you are asking what
reality is but SR provides a good description of objective (that is to
say measurable) reality.

>
>
> O'Barr worte (about simple 3-D geometry):
> > It, in fact,
> > allows all objects to exist and to move with no physical
> > effect! Therefore, it is not the same as SR spacetime
> > geometry! And therefore, it is superior. It does not
> > require Voodoo! It is logical and possible and realistic
> > and natural. And you are a fool if you are not man enough
> > to say this! It has nothing to do with what was seen
> > first, it has to do with common sense, and having physical
> > causes for physical effects. Using geometry as a simple
> > bookkeeping tool is not the same as using geometry to cause
> > changes in results, or even in changes in the appearance of
> > things!

> ___________________________________________________

> [Hogbin]
> Let me just restate the points we agree on:
>
> SR and LET are accurate mathematical descriptions of the
> physical world (without gravity)
>
> Euclidean space is a simpler concept than SR space time.
> SR can be used as the basis of a theory of gravity.
> On the rest we will have to agree to differ.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Why do I feel this urge to restate all this? You said:
> `SR and LET are accurate mathematical descriptions of the
> physical world (without gravity).' This is fine!!!
> You said: `Euclidean space is a simpler concept than SR space
> time.' This is fine!!!!! But then you said: `SR can be
> used as the basis of a theory of gravity.' I do not accept
> SR as being anything to do with gravity. If you want to say
> that SR led to GR, you are mistaken. Certainly SR preceded
> GR, and GR had to reduce to SR, but I would find it difficult
> to make SR directly produce GR!
>

[Hogbin]
I may have been a little careless with my wording, but it is SR
spacetime which is curved in GR to explain gravity.

>
> > [O'Barr]
> > Just because you can
> > apply the same set of words to two different things do
> > not make them equal. If there is any `abstractions' going
> > on here, it is easy to see who has been schnooked!!!!!!

[Hogbin]
I am not sure what you are saying here, except that you are right and I
am wrong.

>
> _____________________________________________________

> And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!

[Hogbin]
I will try to get a look at this.

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00

[Hogbin]
Yes.

[O'Barr]

> Did you really mean
> to infer that you worship simplicity, and that everything
> that is the most simplest will always be superior?

[Hogbin]

If there are two theories both of which agree withe experiment, I would
generally prefer the simpler. But I accept that simplicity is to a
degree subjective.

>
>

> Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .
> But it is nevertheless a mathematical concept.
> Ask a young child (or for that matter many adults) how many
> dimensions there are and why and you will see that 3-D space
> is not so obvious as you think. It took people like Euclid
> and Descartes (and many others) to come up with a
> mathematical description of what '3-dimensions' means. What
> happens is that you are taught that that space is 3-D and
> your subsequent experience confirms that this is a useful
> concept that agrees with experiment. It therefore becomes
> 'reality'.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> It certainly has become my reality. But are you saying
> that it is only based on what I have been told?

[Hogbin]

Yes, that and what you have experienced or, if you are a scientist,
measured.

> Are you

> saying that everything we believe is determined by what
> others have told us? If this is all true, then it appears
> that we do not need a reality at all!!!!!
>

[Hogbin]

We are moving into the realm of philosophy here if you are asking what
reality is but SR provides a good description of objective (that is to
say measurable) reality.

>
>

> O'Barr worte (about simple 3-D geometry):
> > It, in fact,
> > allows all objects to exist and to move with no physical
> > effect! Therefore, it is not the same as SR spacetime
> > geometry! And therefore, it is superior. It does not
> > require Voodoo! It is logical and possible and realistic
> > and natural. And you are a fool if you are not man enough
> > to say this! It has nothing to do with what was seen
> > first, it has to do with common sense, and having physical
> > causes for physical effects. Using geometry as a simple
> > bookkeeping tool is not the same as using geometry to cause
> > changes in results, or even in changes in the appearance of
> > things!

> ___________________________________________________

[Hogbin]

I may have been a little careless with my wording, but it is SR
spacetime which is curved in GR to explain gravity.

> > [O'Barr]
> > Just because you can
> > apply the same set of words to two different things do
> > not make them equal. If there is any `abstractions' going
> > on here, it is easy to see who has been schnooked!!!!!!

[Hogbin]

I am not sure what you are saying here, except that you are right and I
am wrong.

>
> _____________________________________________________
> >

> And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!

[Hogbin]

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00

GLOBARR

unread,

May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00

In <3919EAB3...@hogbin.org.uk>

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> Did you really mean to
> infer that 3-D is only a math concept?

[Hogbin]
Yes.

O'Barr comments:
All of our scientific efforts are in vain if there is not a
real reality that has real and independent characteristics, and
where we have the tools to correctly describe this reality.
And we must always be able to keep separate the tools from the
reality.

[O'Barr]
> Did you really mean
> to infer that you worship simplicity, and that everything
> that is the most simplest will always be superior?

[Hogbin]

If there are two theories both of which agree with experiment,

I would generally prefer the simpler. But I accept that
simplicity is to a degree subjective.

O'Barr comments:
I appreciate your candor. And as you state your feelings
here, it cannot be faulted. As you seem to infer, sometimes
our problem is in knowing which is really simpler. Only in
math can you have what might be called exact equalities. When
you have a theory that breaks out of just a math regime, then
you come face to face with important decisions that are deeper
than just math equality. Here, decisions are just a little
more difficult.

O'Barr wrote:
> Are you
> saying that everything we believe is determined by what
> others have told us? If this is all true, then it appears
> that we do not need a reality at all!!!!!
>

[Hogbin]
We are moving into the realm of philosophy here if you are
asking what reality is but SR provides a good description of
objective (that is to say measurable) reality.

O'Barr comments:
I know of no one who does not agree. SR does provide to us
a most perfect description of what we measure. What it does
not do, is to explain to us why we get what we measure. The
ether theory explains to us why we measure what we measure.
And it does this perfectly.

O'Barr comments:
This wording is more acceptable.

O'Barr comments:
I am glad that at least one point got across! :)
One specific point here was that we can call the 4-D space
time of SR `geometry,' and we can call the 3-D ether space
`geometry.' Just because they can both be called `geometry'
does not make them equal in terms of their `acceptableness.'
One is totally physically impossible, the other is not. One
disobeys every concept in terms of cause and effects, and the
other does not. One can be understood, seen, observed, and
used in every aspect of our lives, the other has never been
independently seen or demonstrated.

O'Barr comments:
Some have been unable to find this article. It is the
`Reference Frame' presentation that is near the front of the
magazine. The man who wrote the article is not an ether fan,
and he did not write the article to promote the ether. But he
did manage to say a few correct things, and it should be looked
at by all of us!

Thanks!!!!

P.S. We should now all look at May 2000 issue, where there is
a description of some very exciting things in terms of E&M
research with man-made negative constants. Although this issue
does not talk about faster than light signals, I feel that we
are close! And as soon as we get this, the ether will be seen
in a different light.

Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
(Some day we will be able to read the FAQ?)

GLOBARR

unread,

May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00

In <3919EAB3...@hogbin.org.uk>
and in <3919E9C0...@hogbin.org.uk>

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote: . . .

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .
> . . . . I believe

> that our 3-D concept is both a reality and a math concept.
> And if our reality were 3-D, then we might want to use a 3-D
> geometry even if it were or were not simpler. Do I read into
> your words above more than I should?
> Did you really mean to
> infer that 3-D is only a math concept?

[Hogbin]
Yes.

[O'Barr]

> Did you really mean
> to infer that you worship simplicity, and that everything
> that is the most simplest will always be superior?

[Hogbin]

If there are two theories both of which agree with experiment,

I would generally prefer the simpler. But I accept that
simplicity is to a degree subjective.

>
>

O'Barr comments:

I know of no one who does not agree. SR does provide to us
a most perfect description of what we measure. What it does
not do, is to explain to us why we get what we measure. The
ether theory explains to us why we measure what we measure.
And it does this perfectly.

O'Barr comments:

This wording is more acceptable.

>

O'Barr comments:

I am glad that at least one point got across! :)
One specific point here was that we can call the 4-D space
time of SR `geometry,' and we can call the 3-D ether space
`geometry.' Just because they can both be called `geometry'
does not make them equal in terms of their `acceptableness.'
One is totally physically impossible, the other is not. One
disobeys every concept in terms of cause and effects, and the
other does not. One can be understood, seen, observed, and
used in every aspect of our lives, the other has never been
independently seen or demonstrated.

O'Barr comments:

Some have been unable to find this article. It is the
`Reference Frame' presentation that is near the front of the
magazine. The man who wrote the article is not an ether fan,
and he did not write the article to promote the ether. But he
did manage to say a few correct things, and it should be looked
at by all of us!

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?)

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00

> [ O'Barr]

> > Did you really mean to

> > infer that 3-D is only a math concept?
>
> [Hogbin]
> Yes.
>

> [O'Barr]

> All of our scientific efforts are in vain if there is not a
> real reality that has real and independent characteristics, and
> where we have the tools to correctly describe this reality.

[Hogbin]
I am happy to agree with you that there is an independent reality (this
is one for the philosophers). However, you insist that it conforms you
your preconceived notions of how things should be.

> [O Barr]

> And we must always be able to keep separate the tools from the
> reality.

[Hogbin]
Classical Lagrangian and Newtonian mechanics; which one is 'reality' and
which one is merely a mathematical tool?

>
> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

>
> >
> > Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .

> > But it [3-D space] is nevertheless a mathematical concept.

[Hogbin]
The aether does not explain why all types of clock are slowed, why rods
shrink, or in fact anything at all. You merely assert that motion
through it causes these things to happen.

But this is not my main point. That is that you insist that the real
world must work in a particular way to suit your own notions of
'reality'.

> > ___________________________________________________

> >
> > > [O'Barr]
> > > Just because you can
> > > apply the same set of words to two different things do
> > > not make them equal. If there is any `abstractions' going
> > > on here, it is easy to see who has been schnooked!!!!!!
>
> [Hogbin]
> I am not sure what you are saying here, except that you are
> right and I am wrong.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I am glad that at least one point got across! :)
> One specific point here was that we can call the 4-D space
> time of SR `geometry,' and we can call the 3-D ether space
> `geometry.' Just because they can both be called `geometry'
> does not make them equal in terms of their `acceptableness.'

> One is totally physically impossible,...

[Hogbin]
Clearly not. What mathematics predicts would happen if we really lived
in 4-D is what actually happens.

[O'Barr]

> One disobeys every concept in terms of cause and effects, and the
> other does not. One can be understood, seen, observed, and
> used in every aspect of our lives, the other has never been
> independently seen or demonstrated.

[Hogbin]
SR can be understood; many on this newsgroup do so.

SR can be observed; that is what it is all about.

SR is not apparent in our everyday lives because the speed of light is
so high compared with everyday speeds. The same applies to LET.

GLOBARR

unread,

May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00

In <391B3575...@hogbin.org.uk>

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

> [ O'Barr]
> > Did you really mean to
> > infer that 3-D is only a math concept?
>
> [Hogbin]
> Yes.
>
> [O'Barr]
> All of our scientific efforts are in vain if there is not
> a real reality that has real and independent
> characteristics, and where we have the tools to correctly
> describe this reality.

[Hogbin]
I am happy to agree with you that there is an independent
reality (this is one for the philosophers).

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
I am sure that it is one for the philosophers, and for many
others. It is also the very base to our physics. Only a
person who wanted to hide something would say that reality was
not the subject of physics!

Hogbin wrote: . . .

However, you insist that it conforms you your preconceived
notions of how things should be.

O'Barr comments:
The intent of science is to understand this reality. The
intent of science is to form `notions' that conforms to this
reality. Exactly what are you complaining about?

> [O'Barr]
> And we must always be able to keep separate the tools from
> the reality.

[Hogbin]
Classical Lagrangian and Newtonian mechanics; which one is
'reality' and which one is merely a mathematical tool?

O'Barr comments:
Any and all mathematics, and math equations, are just
tools. Maybe you would like to rethink what you are asking?

> . . . SR does provide to us

> a most perfect description of what we measure. What it does
> not do, is to explain to us why we get what we measure. The
> ether theory explains to us why we measure what we measure.
> And it does this perfectly.
>

[Hogbin]
The aether does not explain why all types of clock are slowed,
why rods shrink, or in fact anything at all. You merely
assert that motion through it causes these things to happen.

O'Barr comments:
Who cares what I do? What do true scientists do? What do
you do? Have you tried to use the ether to explain any of
these things? If not, why not? We today have very powerful
computers. When were these things used to test out the
equilibrium of atoms moving in an E&M field? Lorentz, without
our modern computers, was able to find equilibrium shifts that
perfectly mimicked our SQRT(1-vv/cc). Why do we not see what
such an approach would show us today? Is it because SR
thinking has hindered our abilities to progress? Isn't it
interesting that no SR expert will tell us that they tried,
and can't do these things? Today, there ought to be proof,
and I would like to see you prove it!!!!! Shame on you all,
for not doing your homework!!!

Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .

But this is not my main point. That is that you insist that
the real world must work in a particular way to suit your own
notions of 'reality'.

O'Barr comments:
And this is all just black smoke and hog wash! It is
really just the opposite! We now know that it is you that
have no evidence at all to believe in SR over the ether. You
are the one that have been caught with your pants down!!!!!
You are the liars!!!! Just read your FAQ!!!!! And even
worse, you will not change your FAQ!!!!!! You are not just
liars, you are lying in the direct face of contradictions
right here on this net! You are calling those who were lied
to as being the ones who are wrong. You cannot be more evil
than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> > > [O'Barr]
> > > Just because you can apply the same
> > > set of words to two different things do not make
> > > them equal. If there is any `abstractions' going
> > > on here, it is easy to see who has been schnooked!!!!!!
>
> [Hogbin]
> I am not sure what you are saying here, except that you are
> right and I am wrong.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I am glad that at least one point got across! :)
> One specific point here was that we can call the 4-D space
> time of SR `geometry,' and we can call the 3-D ether space
> `geometry.' Just because they can both be called `geometry'
> does not make them equal in terms of their `acceptableness.'
> One is totally physically impossible,...

[Hogbin]
Clearly not. What mathematics predicts would happen if we
really lived in 4-D is what actually happens.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, if we really lived in a 4-D continuum. But you see,
it is physically impossible to really be living in a 4-D
continuum. That is the whole point!!!!! And if you are going
to assume that this impossible 4-D is real, then you better
have some direct scientific evidence. There is absolutely no
scientific evidence for this, else the ether approach could
not be considered to be the mathematically equal to SR!!!!!!

[O'Barr]
> One disobeys every concept in terms of cause and effects,
> and the other does not. One can be understood, seen,
> observed, and used in every aspect of our lives, the other
> has never been independently seen or demonstrated.

[Hogbin]
SR can be understood; many on this newsgroup do so.
SR can be observed; that is what it is all about.
SR is not apparent in our everyday lives because the speed of
light is so high compared with everyday speeds. The same
applies to LET.

O'Barr comments:
The above is so laughable that it is hard to answer it.
You really cannot be real, can you?????? The very reason that
this news group exists is because SR is not physically
understandable. Anyone can understand its math. But what
drives most people crazy is that it is impossible physically.
The ether explains everything, even SR, so that SR, for the
first time, can be physically understood, as well as its math.

And how dare you not understand this! This is
a great day, and we are seeing progress right here on this
net!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00

[Hogbin]
I am complaining that you have a preconceived notion of what reality
should be like. When you have a theory like SR that agrees with all
experiments you dismiss it on the grounds that it must be wrong because
it does not agree with your preconceived notions.

[Hogbin]
Computers do not come up with new theories, people do. If you think
that there ought to be a theory to explain why rods shrink and clocks
slow it is up to you to propose one. Physicists are not interested in
such things because they already have a perfectly good theory (SR).

The fact remains that there are no theories to explain why rods shrink
and clocks slow and therefore the LET does not explain anything.

>
> Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .
> But this is not my main point. That is that you insist that
> the real world must work in a particular way to suit your own
> notions of 'reality'.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And this is all just black smoke and hog wash! It is
> really just the opposite! We now know that it is you that
> have no evidence at all to believe in SR over the ether.

[Hogbin]
I agree that SR cannot be experimentally distinguished from LET but, as
I have explained, I find the SR description of reality more convincing.

[O'Barr]

> You
> are the one that have been caught with your pants down!!!!!
> You are the liars!!!! Just read your FAQ!!!!! And even
> worse, you will not change your FAQ!!!!!! You are not just
> liars, you are lying in the direct face of contradictions
> right here on this net! You are calling those who were lied
> to as being the ones who are wrong. You cannot be more evil
> than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hogbin]
Just as I thought that we were having a rational civilised discussion...

>
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

[O'Barr]

> [Hogbin]

I am not sure what else I can say. You have your own ideas on what is
an acceptable description of reality and you will not consider any
theory that does not conform to them.

I think that LET is a good theory, although it is not without its
conceptual problems, but SR, in most physicists' opinions (mine
included), is a better theory.

GLOBARR

unread,

May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00

In <39207E3A...@hogbin.org.uk>

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . . .

> The intent of science is to understand this reality. The
> intent of science is to form `notions' that conforms to this
> reality. Exactly what are you complaining about?

[Hogbin]
I am complaining that you have a preconceived notion of what
reality should be like. When you have a theory like SR that
agrees with all experiments you dismiss it on the grounds that
it must be wrong because it does not agree with your
preconceived notions.

O'Barr comments:
I believe I have pre-conceived notions. I believe we all
have such. There is no problem in having preconceived notions
as long as we do not allow them to get in the way of the facts.
The scientific facts do not allow you to scientific
discriminate between SR and the ether. This stands outside of
anyone's preconceived notions. And thus my complaint is that
you are doing things that are not scientific. They are only
personal choices. And you are not man enough to see any of
this. Even now, you are ignoring the problem.
Let us see what it would be like if you were really being
honest. You would tell the world that we cannot
scientifically discriminate between SR and the ether. But we
are going to pick SR as our favorite. Because we personally
chose SR, then we are going to force you to believe as we
believe by only presenting our concepts. We are going to force
you to believe in a totally new way of seeing things. You are
going to be forced to believe in 4-D spacetime continuums. You
are going to be made to think that we can have back-in-time
effects, and etc, and etc, and etc. If we were to believe in
the ether, which is scientifically just as correct and perfect,
you would only have the same old physics that you have always
had, just simple 3-D space, etc. But I am sure you will want
to take our approach and will not want to consider anything
simple.
Now wouldn't this be a little more honest?

>
O'Barr wrote:
> ... What do true scientists do? What do

> you do? Have you tried to use the ether to explain any of
> these things? If not, why not? We today have very powerful
> computers. When were these things used to test out the
> equilibrium of atoms moving in an E&M field? Lorentz,
> without our modern computers, was able to find equilibrium
> shifts that
> perfectly mimicked our SQRT(1-vv/cc). Why do we not see what
> such an approach would show us today? Is it because SR
> thinking has hindered our abilities to progress? Isn't it
> interesting that no SR expert will tell us that they tried,
> and can't do these things? Today, there ought to be proof,
> and I would like to see you prove it!!!!! Shame on you all,
> for not doing your homework!!!

[Hogbin]
Computers do not come up with new theories, people do. If you
think that there ought to be a theory to explain why rods
shrink and clocks slow it is up to you to propose one.
Physicists are not interested in such things because they
already have a perfectly good theory (SR).
The fact remains that there are no theories to explain why
rods shrink and clocks slow and therefore the LET does not
explain anything.

O'Barr comments:
But scientifically, the ether approach is just as valid as
SR. Therefore, scientific men would not ignore such a valid
theory. You make me sick!!!!!!

O'Barr comments:
Just listen to your own words: You agree that there are no
facts to your position. Yet no matter what, you are convinced
that SR is the better approach! And you say this without one
word of justification! This ought to turn everyone's stomach!
I do not say that a person does not have a right to a personal
choice. But personal choices is not science, and it should not
be used unless it is clearly stated and acknowledged. Shame on
you!!!!!! And more shame on your FAQ!!!!!!!!

[O'Barr]
> . . . You

> are the one that have been caught with your pants down!!!!!
> You are the liars!!!! Just read your FAQ!!!!! And even
> worse, you will not change your FAQ!!!!!! You are not just
> liars, you are lying in the direct face of contradictions
> right here on this net! You are calling those who were lied
> to as being the ones who are wrong. You cannot be more evil
> than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hogbin]
Just as I thought that we were having a rational civilised
discussion...

O'Barr comments:
However civilized or not, it sure is not very scientific on
your part! This is going to have to end!

>

[O'Barr]
> > One specific point here was that we can call the 4-D
> > space time of SR `geometry,' and we can call the 3-D ether
> > space `geometry.' Just because they can both be called
> > `geometry' does not make them equal in terms of their
> > `acceptableness.' One is totally physically impossible,...
>
> [Hogbin]
> Clearly not. What mathematics predicts would happen if we
> really lived in 4-D is what actually happens.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, if we really lived in a 4-D continuum. But you see,
> it is physically impossible to really be living in a 4-D
> continuum. That is the whole point!!!!! And if you are
> going to assume that this impossible 4-D is real, then you
> better have some direct scientific evidence. There is
> absolutely no scientific evidence for this, else the ether
> approach could not be considered to be the mathematically
> equal to SR!!!!!!
>

> [O'Barr, talking about SR vs ether concepts:]

> > One disobeys every concept in terms of cause and effects,
> > and the other does not. One can be understood, seen,
> > observed, and used in every aspect of our lives, the other
> > has never been independently seen or demonstrated.
>
> [Hogbin]
> SR can be understood; many on this newsgroup do so.
> SR can be observed; that is what it is all about.
> SR is not apparent in our everyday lives because the speed of
> light is so high compared with everyday speeds. The same
> applies to LET.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> The above is so laughable that it is hard to answer it.
> You really cannot be real, can you?????? The very reason

> this news group exists is because SR is not physically
> understandable. Anyone can understand its math. But what
> drives most people crazy is that it is impossible physically.
> The ether explains everything, even SR, so that SR, for the
> first time, can be physically understood, as well as its
> math.
>
> And how dare you not understand this! This is
> a great day, and we are seeing progress right here on this
> net!
>
[Hogbin]
I am not sure what else I can say. You have your own ideas
on what is an acceptable description of reality and you will
not consider any theory that does not conform to them.
I think that LET is a good theory, although it is not
without its conceptual problems, but SR, in most physicists'
opinions (mine included), is a better theory.

O'Barr comments:
Are you saying I am unwilling to consider what SR says? I
think I understand what SR says as well as you. I know I
support SR math more than you. I even understand it!
And you cannot get away with this `inference' that SR and
the ether are just two different theories, and we are free to
pick one or the other however we please. These are not two
different theories. Mathematically, they are identical. This
is a very unique and a very strange and a very interesting
situation, and it is this special situation that makes it
impossible for you to scientifically conclude what you do. You
are not being fair, and you are not responding in a responsible
way. The problem is your problem, not mine! How dare you try
to blame the problem on me! You are the one who has made the
error, and you are going to have to change! The ether is
superior, and this has nothing to do with anyone's preconceived
notions.

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/17/00

> [Hogbin]
> I am complaining that you have a preconceived notion of what
> reality should be like. When you have a theory like SR that
> agrees with all experiments you dismiss it on the grounds that
> it must be wrong because it does not agree with your
> preconceived notions.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I believe I have pre-conceived notions. I believe we all
> have such. There is no problem in having preconceived notions
> as long as we do not allow them to get in the way of the facts.
> The scientific facts do not allow you to scientific
> discriminate between SR and the ether.

[Hogbin]
But remember that it is SR spacetime curvature that explains gravity.
In other words, relativity (including GR) covers much more than LET. It
explains gravity, including features not explained by Newtonian
gravitation but verified by experiment; the (experimentally verified)
effects of gravity on light, and gravity waves, yet to be detected. Now
if the latest experiments eventually show that gravity waves do not
exist - that would be something of a latter day MMX and aether might
make a comeback. You had better get to work developing your aether
theory ready for that possibility.

I agree that, if it were not for GR, the fight between SR and LET for
acceptance might have been closer. GR was the final blow for LET.

[O'Barr]

> This stands outside of
> anyone's preconceived notions. And thus my complaint is that
> you are doing things that are not scientific.

> They are only personal choices.

[Hogbin]
I have never denied this. I am, however, encouraged by the fact that
the rest of the world's physicists agree with me.

[O'Barr]

> And you are not man enough to see any of
> this. Even now, you are ignoring the problem.
> Let us see what it would be like if you were really being
> honest. You would tell the world that we cannot
> scientifically discriminate between SR and the ether.

[Hogbin]
I am happy to do this. World! We cannot
scientifically discriminate between SR and the aether (LET).

GR is another matter.

[O'Barr]

> But we
> are going to pick SR as our favorite. Because we personally
> chose SR, then we are going to force you to believe as we
> believe by only presenting our concepts.

[Hogbin]
The point is that, in the early days of relativity, physicists did
consider the alternative theories of the day but they all eventually
chose relativity.

>
> O'Barr wrote:
> > ... What do true scientists do? What do
> > you do? Have you tried to use the ether to explain any of
> > these things? If not, why not?

<snip>

> Shame on you all,
> > for not doing your homework!!!

[Hogbin]
It is your pet theory, you do it. This is how the world works.

>
> [Hogbin]

> The fact remains that there are no theories to explain why
> rods shrink and clocks slow and therefore the LET does not
> explain anything.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But scientifically, the ether approach is just as valid as
> SR. Therefore, scientific men would not ignore such a valid
> theory. You make me sick!!!!!!
>

[Hogbin]
We agree that SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable but you
prefer LET and I, together with the world's physicists, prefer SR.

>
> >
> > Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .
> > But this is not my main point. That is that you insist that
> > the real world must work in a particular way to suit your own
> > notions of 'reality'.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > And this is all just black smoke and hog wash! It is
> > really just the opposite! We now know that it is you that
> > have no evidence at all to believe in SR over the ether.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I agree that SR cannot be experimentally distinguished from LET
> but, as I have explained, I find the SR description of reality
> more convincing.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Just listen to your own words: You agree that there are no
> facts to your position. Yet no matter what, you are convinced
> that SR is the better approach! And you say this without one
> word of justification!

[Hogbin]
My original post on this thread gave my justification for my
preference. You have failed to justify yours.

> [O'Barr]

> I do not say that a person does not have a right to a personal
> choice. But personal choices is not science,

[Hogbin]
If it were just my choice you might have a point but the scientific
community has settled on SR as its preferred theory.

[O'Barr]

> and it should not
> be used unless it is clearly stated and acknowledged. Shame on
> you!!!!!! And more shame on your FAQ!!!!!!!!

[Hogbin]
I am happy to state that my view is that shared by the world's
physicists.

More importantly you should make clear when replying to questions on
this newsgroup that you do so from an extreme minority viewpoint.

GLOBARR

unread,

May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00

In <39231D1F...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

> [Hogbin]
> . .. . .

>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:

> . . . The scientific facts do not allow you to

> scientific discriminate between SR and the ether.

[Hogbin]
But remember that it is SR spacetime curvature that explains
gravity. In other words, relativity (including GR) covers
much more than LET. It explains gravity, including features
not explained by Newtonian gravitation but verified by
experiment; the (experimentally verified) effects of gravity
on light, and gravity waves, yet to be detected. Now
if the latest experiments eventually show that gravity waves
do not exist - that would be something of a latter day MMX
and aether might make a comeback. You had better get to work
developing your aether theory ready for that possibility.
I agree that, if it were not for GR, the fight between SR
and LET for acceptance might have been closer. GR was the
final blow for LET.

O'Barr comments:
You sure sound big in your opinions! GR is SR, where SR
applies. And if we prove that SR is ether, then we prove
that GR is ether, at least where SR applies. Are you not
only dumb, but you also do not even think?
What is going on here is showing that SR is only math
(which has to be true because GR is only math), and when all
you have is only math, then you are not superior to a
physical theory that can do the same things. LET is the
ether theory in the ether that is in free ether space, just
as SR is the math theory of GR that is in its free space.
The full ether theory should easily be able to account for
the math of GR! Dare I say that it has already been done? I
personally find your words a waste of time. It is actually
GR that really requires an ether. How can you be what you
are and not know this????

O'Barr wrote about not being able to scientifically
discriminate between SR and the ether:

> This stands outside of anyone's preconceived
> notions. And thus my complaint is that
> you are doing things that are not scientific.
> They are only personal choices.

[Hogbin]
I have never denied this. I am, however, encouraged by the
fact that the rest of the world's physicists agree with me.

O'Barr comments:
At this point, the only thing you have for yourself are
these numbers. And isn't that sad! The only thing you have
to make yourself feel good is that you are with the majority.
What a sad day for our modern education system, if this is
sufficient for your decision.

[O'Barr]
> And you are not man enough to see any of
> this. Even now, you are ignoring the problem.
> Let us see what it would be like if you were really being
> honest. You would tell the world that we cannot
> scientifically discriminate between SR and the ether.

[Hogbin]
I am happy to do this. World! We cannot scientifically

discriminate between SR and the aether (LET). . . .

O'Barr comments:
Thank you for saying this. I have been able get everyone
to admit to this on this net as far back as 1997. Josh was
one of the first. Yet, when you read the SR FAQ, even here
in the year 2000, you do not hear them say that what you are
getting is someone's personal choice. You are getting
presented to you something that is scientific, and must be
accepted by those who are going to be scientific. And every
`newbe' that comes on this net has to be taken through the
same junk just to get to an obvious conclusion. As far as I
am now concerned, every SR expert on this net is now a liar,
because they do not demand that the FAQ state what we now all
accept!

Martin Hogbin continues:
GR is another matter.

O'Barr comments:
Not really, as already explained above!

O'Barr wrote, about what SR experts should say, but won't:
> . . . we are going to pick SR as our favorite.

> Because we personally chose SR,
> then we are going to force you to
> believe as we believe by only presenting our concepts.

[Hogbin]
The point is that, in the early days of relativity,
physicists did consider the alternative theories of the day
but they all eventually chose relativity.

O'Barr comments:
This certainly is true, and it will ultimately be a shame
to everyone who did this!

>
> O'Barr wrote:
> > ... What do true scientists do? What do
> > you do? Have you tried to use the ether to explain any
> > of these things? If not, why not?

<snip>

[Hogbin]
It is your pet theory, you do it. This is how the world
works.

O'Barr comments:
And so now it is my fault?

>
> [Hogbin]
> The fact remains that there are no theories to explain why
> rods shrink and clocks slow and therefore the LET does not
> explain anything.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But scientifically, the ether approach is just as valid as
> SR. Therefore, scientific men would not ignore such a
> valid theory. You make me sick!!!!!!
>

[Hogbin]
We agree that SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable
but you prefer LET and I, together with the world's
physicists, prefer SR.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, but in science, you do not get to prefer this or
that. The evidence is clear, the ether is superior. The
physics of the ether, being in simple 3-D space and simple
1-D time, is superior. The 4-D of SR is not even physically
possible! The ether, being physical, has physical limits to
the math, the very limits that are needed. In every way, the
ether approach is superior.

>
> >
> > Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .
> > But this is not my main point. That is that you insist
> > that the real world must work in a particular way to suit
> > your own notions of 'reality'.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > And this is all just black smoke and hog wash! It is
> > really just the opposite! We now know that it is you
> > that have no evidence at all to believe in SR over the
> > ether.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I agree that SR cannot be experimentally distinguished from
> LET but, as I have explained, I find the SR description of
> reality more convincing.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Just listen to your own words: You agree that there are no
> facts to your position. Yet no matter what, you are
> convinced that SR is the better approach! And you say this
> without one word of justification!

[Hogbin]
My original post on this thread gave my justification for my
preference. You have failed to justify yours.

O'Barr comments:
I have justified it until I am blue in the face! SR,
being only math, cannot tell us exactly what physically
happens, and has no physical causes. It is entirely Voodoo.
The ether, however, is physical. It tells exactly what
physically happens, and it has physical causes in every area.
The justification for the ether is actually endless. Its
predictions are perfect. It is correct and exact in every
way. It does everything that SR does, and then from there
goes on to explain, and give causes, and justifications that
SR cannot do. There is really no comparison. The ether is
so superior that we will laugh at those who try to stay with
their Voodoo. And you know, you know I am right! Why would
you not say so!!!!!!

> [O'Barr]
> I do not say that a person does not have a right to a
> personal choice. But personal choices is not science,

[Hogbin]
If it were just my choice you might have a point but the
scientific community has settled on SR as its preferred
theory.

O'Barr comments:
I see. What is wrong for one person to do is O.K. if a
large number do it!!!!!

[O'Barr]
> and it should not be used unless
> it is clearly stated and acknowledged. Shame on
> you!!!!!! And more shame on your FAQ!!!!!!!!

[Hogbin]
I am happy to state that my view is that shared by the
world's physicists.
More importantly you should make clear when replying to
questions on this newsgroup that you do so from an extreme
minority viewpoint.

O'Barr comments:
Isn't it strange that you again appeal to numbers, and you
want it to be clear that I have no numbers. Yes, it is easy
to tell that you are being scientific.
You should repent! The ether is superior, and it is
superior even if I did not exist! Surely you ought to re-
read what you have posted, and then find a good friend. You
need help!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00

[Hogbin]
I have deleted most of this post leaving the main point on which we
disagree.

> .O'Barr comments:

> SR, being only math, cannot tell us exactly what physically
> happens, and has no physical causes. It is entirely Voodoo.

[Hogbin]
I cannot see why you say SR is only maths. Why is it not physics?

[O'Barr]

> The ether, however, is physical.

[Hogbin]
In what sense?

[O'Barr]

> It [the aether] tells exactly what

> physically happens, and it has physical causes in every area.

[Hogbin]
What are these physical causes, you have never stated them?

> [O'Barr]

> The justification for the ether is actually endless. Its
> predictions are perfect. It is correct and exact in every
> way. It does everything that SR does, and then from there
> goes on to explain, and give causes, and justifications that
> SR cannot do.

[Hogbin]
You have never told me what these causes are; you have merely admonished
me, together with the rest of the world, for not looking for them.

[O'Barr]

> There is really no comparison. The ether is
> so superior that we will laugh at those who try to stay with
> their Voodoo.

[Hogbin]
I fear that we are not getting very far. I know that you find the
aether superior but I cannot understand why?

I do not think that I am going to convince you to even give relativity a
second glance.

We do agree on some things but on the rest we may have to agree to
differ.

GLOBARR

unread,

May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00

In <39244C2F...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Ref: <39231D1F...@hogbin.org.uk>
<20000517212254...@ng-md1.aol.com>

[Hogbin]
I have deleted most of this post leaving the main point on
which we disagree.

O'Barr wrote:
> SR, being only math, cannot tell us exactly what physically
> happens, and has no physical causes. It is entirely Voodoo.

[Hogbin]
I cannot see why you say SR is only maths. Why is it not
physics?

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Every theory in physics is, by definition, a physics theory.
Every theory in physics is usually telling us the physical
results of physical things. But the origin or base to a theory
can be different. Newton's gravity theory was just a math
equation, and he knew this. And because it was just a math
theory, it had limitations, and he did not want anyone to
misunderstand these limitations! The kinetic theory of gases
however is not just a math theory. This theory is based upon
physical assumptions, and from these physical assumptions, math
relationships are developed and used. Therefore, there are
many fundamental differences between PV = nRT, as an equation,
and F = G*m1*m2/r^2. Both of these equations are math
equations, both are equations used in physics, both tell us
things about what physical things do. But!!!!! In PV = nRT,
this equation has limits. This equation has an interpretation
that is directly physical, and specific, and definite, and
meaningful, and defined by the physical situations upon which
it was based. There are physical causes and physical
relationships that can be used to relate it to other physical
equations.
But for F = G*m1*m2/r^2, there are no physical understanding
behind this math. We have no way to tell why it works, or how
it works, or with what limitations we should expect, or even if
it was just an accident. And one who is a physicist would know
that something better must eventually come along!!!!!
Therefore, you tell me, is SR a math theory or is it a
physical theory? And you tell me, is the ether theory a math
theory, or is it a physical theory? These are important
questions, and I have answered these questions several times on
this net.

[O'Barr]
> The ether, however, is physical.

[Hogbin]
In what sense?

O'Barr comments:
In the correct presentation of the ether theory, you present
the physical situation first:

There is a physical ether, in which
1) light, in free ether space, has a constant speed c.
2) Rulers, in their direction of motion, v, have a length of
Lv = Lo * SQRT(1-vv/cc)
3) Clocks have a rate of
Rv = Ro * SQRT(1-vv/cc)

Once this physical base is established (certainly you might
want to state all these things a little more complete than what
I am doing here (see previous posts), then you can present what
Einstein did, and correctly get SR math.
When this is done, then all the mystery is gone. Every
equation is understood. Everything occurs in simple 3-D space.
You have no paradoxes, real or imagined. The physical base
provides you with everything you need to control and define the
math at every point. It makes the ether approach superior to
SR, which only has the math!

[O'Barr]
> It [the aether] tells exactly what
> physically happens, and it has physical causes in every area.

[Hogbin]
What are these physical causes, you have never stated them?

O'Barr comments:
Have you read any of Dennis's posts? The use of the ether
allows local physical causes to limit the speed of every
photon, to affect the rate of every clock, and the length of
every ruler. The ether has, as said, the local position to be
able to do all this. It has certain variables that are
adequate for doing all this (that is, all length and rate
function variables needed to accomplish all these changes exist
locally, in a monatomic or unique fashion.) And there are no
reasons not to be able to assume that the ether has the energy
or means of doing all these things.
Therefore, in the ether theory, all physical things
necessary for change is present. In SR, objects appear to
change relative to other objects, and of course objects cannot
be aware of what other objects are doing, so that they can
change accordingly. Therefore, SR is simple Voodoo of the very
worse kind!!!!!!

> [O'Barr]
> The justification for the ether is actually endless. Its
> predictions are perfect. It is correct and exact in every
> way. It does everything that SR does, and then from there
> goes on to explain, and give causes, and justifications that
> SR cannot do.

[Hogbin]
You have never told me what these causes are; you have merely
admonished me, together with the rest of the world, for not
looking for them.

O'Barr comments:
Then re-read this post. Look up hundreds of previous posts
that I have made. Look up thousands of posts that Dennis has
made. You do know how to do these things, don't you?

[O'Barr]
> There is really no comparison. The ether is
> so superior that we will laugh at those who try to stay with
> their Voodoo.

[Hogbin]
I fear that we are not getting very far. I know that you
find the aether superior but I cannot understand why?
I do not think that I am going to convince you to even give
relativity a second glance.
We do agree on some things but on the rest we may have to
agree to differ.

O'Barr comments:
I have no troubles with the math of SR. SR math is correct.
The ether even explains SR math. So I will in no way over-look
SR. And if we are both honest, and both good physicist, there
will be no way that we could disagree on any single thing. I
invite you to re-read this post, and read what has been
presented in the past, and come to enjoy a step forward in
science. This opportunity does not happen too often, but this
is what is happening this very moment! Don't miss it!!!!

GLOBARR

unread,

May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00

In <392805DC...@bromleyinstruments.co.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@bromleyinstruments.co.uk> wrote:

Ref: <39244C2F...@hogbin.org.uk>
<20000518181147...@ng-md1.aol.com>

>
>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> > SR, being only math, cannot tell us exactly what
> > physically happens, and has no physical causes. It is
> > entirely Voodoo.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I cannot see why you say SR is only maths. Why is it not
> physics?
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> Every theory in physics is, by definition, a physics
> theory.

[Hogbin]
Yes?

> [O'Barr]

> Every theory in physics is usually telling us the physical
> results of physical things. But the origin or base to a
> theory can be different. Newton's gravity theory was just a
> math equation, and he knew this. And because it was just a
> math theory, it had limitations, and he did not want anyone
> to misunderstand these limitations! The kinetic theory of
> gases however is not just a math theory. This theory is
> based upon physical assumptions, and from these physical
> assumptions, math relationships are developed and used.

[Hogbin]
Does a physical theory, as far as you are concerned, have to
consist of small bits of solid things which only interact when
they touch?

O'Barr comments:
A physical theory has to be what is said, it has to be
physical. And some physical theories are better than others.
You judge the differences between theories by how well they
accomplish this requirement of being physical. Surely you are
sensitive to all this!!!! And no physical theory is perfect.
All physical theories must end at some point where only
assumptions remain. Are you really being serious in any of
your questions?

[O'Barr]

> Therefore, there are many fundamental
> differences between PV = nRT, as an equation,
> and F = G*m1*m2/r^2. Both of these equations are math
> equations, both are equations used in physics, both tell us
> things about what physical things do. But!!!!! In PV = nRT,
> this equation has limits. This equation has an
> interpretation that is directly physical,
> and specific, and definite, and meaningful,
> and defined by the physical situations upon which
> it was based. There are physical causes and physical
> relationships that can be used to relate it to other physical
> equations.

[Hogbin]
I agree, the kinetic theory of gasses is based on the
interaction of gas molecules with one another using Newton's
laws (I presume these are part of 'real' physics).

O'Barr comments:
And now we are talking about `real' physics? Somehow I
sense that you are playing with me. What does `real physics'
have to do with a theory being a physical theory?

[O'Barr]

But for F = G*m1*m2/r^2, there are no physical understanding
behind this math. We have no way to tell why it works, or how
it works, or with what limitations we should expect, or even if
it was just an accident.

[Hogbin]
Newton's law of gravitation is not, on the other hand, based
on any pre-existing theory.
Are you saying that all laws of physics must be based on
pre-existing laws to be 'real'?

O'Barr comments:
Are you just trying to be confusing? The kinetic theory of
gases is not a physical theory because it used any pre-existing
theory. It is a physical theory because it is based upon
physical acts of physical particles. It does not matter if
these physical acts were previously known or not. It does not
matter is the particles were previously known or not. What
matters is if these acts and particles can be accepted to be
physical, and they are acceptable, and their acts can be
mathematically described as a physical system! And the
physical system works!

[O'Barr]

> Therefore, you tell me, is SR a math theory or is it a
> physical theory?

[Hogbin]
You are making a distinction that I do not understand.

O'Barr comments:
And so it appears to be. And thus I will stop this post at
this unexplainable point. You, an educated person, one who
evidently can use a computer, and can post to
sci.physics.relativity, just will not admit to knowing things
that were discussed by Newton and every smart person who has
ever lived. It is the simple question about what math means as
it relates to our physical reality.
The only way you could post what you are posting would be
with a specific intent to confuse and to be difficult, all
because you evidently worship a math theory, and do not want to
address the weaknesses of having just a math theory. I feel
sorry for you, that you are not a free man. You are limited in
your willingness to consider things, just so you can prop up a
theory that is now on its last legs. The ether is so superior
to SR that you cannot even be fair in your thoughts and in your
considerations. What a sorry state to be in.

And another last comment. You seem to reject the ether
because you can find a few questions that the ether does not
yet answer. I am sorry that this is used as a scientific
reason to reject it. I guess SR has no unanswered questions.
If this is what you think, then I understand why the SR experts
are so dumb. What is being done is that the ether is superior
to SR, not that the ether answers every question, but that it
answers more questions than SR. This is what makes it
superior. Why would you not address this fact, rather than the
fact that even with the ether, we still have a few questions
left? To me, you are the best example of why SR is a failure.
Your ability to think has been robbed from you because of the
`religious' acceptance of something that is, after all, just a
theory! Such thinking and such responses should have never
been allowed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00

[Hogbin]
You have still not explained what you mean by this. I have tried to
guess but with no success.

[O'Barr]

> And some physical theories are better than others.
> You judge the differences between theories by how well they
> accomplish this requirement of being physical. Surely you are
> sensitive to all this!!!!

[Hogbin]
No. I do not know what you mean.

[O'Barr]

> And no physical theory is perfect.
> All physical theories must end at some point where only
> assumptions remain.

[Hogbin]
Yes, I have no objection to this.

[O'Barr]

> Are you really being serious in any of
> your questions?
>

[Hogbin]
Yes, I really am trying to understand what you mean by physical. Please
tell me, without using the word 'physical'.

>
> [O'Barr]
> > Therefore, there are many fundamental
> > differences between PV = nRT, as an equation,
> > and F = G*m1*m2/r^2. Both of these equations are math
> > equations, both are equations used in physics, both tell us
> > things about what physical things do. But!!!!! In PV = nRT,
> > this equation has limits. This equation has an
> > interpretation that is directly physical,
> > and specific, and definite, and meaningful,
> > and defined by the physical situations upon which
> > it was based. There are physical causes and physical
> > relationships that can be used to relate it to other physical
> > equations.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I agree, the kinetic theory of gasses is based on the
> interaction of gas molecules with one another using Newton's
> laws (I presume these are part of 'real' physics).
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And now we are talking about `real' physics? Somehow I
> sense that you are playing with me. What does `real physics'
> have to do with a theory being a physical theory?
>

[Hogbin]
I do not know. I was just trying to have a guess at what you might mean
by a physical theory. Obviously I was wrong.

>
> [O'Barr]
> But for F = G*m1*m2/r^2, there are no physical understanding
> behind this math. We have no way to tell why it works, or how
> it works, or with what limitations we should expect, or even if
> it was just an accident.
>
> [Hogbin]
> Newton's law of gravitation is not, on the other hand, based
> on any pre-existing theory.
> Are you saying that all laws of physics must be based on
> pre-existing laws to be 'real'?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Are you just trying to be confusing? The kinetic theory of
> gases is not a physical theory because it used any pre-existing
> theory. It is a physical theory because it is based upon
> physical acts of physical particles. It does not matter if
> these physical acts were previously known or not. It does not
> matter is the particles were previously known or not. What
> matters is if these acts and particles can be accepted to be
> physical, and they are acceptable, and their acts can be
> mathematically described as a physical system! And the
> physical system works!
>

[Hogbin]
It's physical because it's physical. I know it is hard to explain a
concept but please have a go. What do you mean by physical?

>
> [O'Barr]
> > Therefore, you tell me, is SR a math theory or is it a
> > physical theory?
>
> [Hogbin]
> You are making a distinction that I do not understand.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And so it appears to be. And thus I will stop this post at
> this unexplainable point. You, an educated person, one who
> evidently can use a computer, and can post to
> sci.physics.relativity, just will not admit to knowing things
> that were discussed by Newton and every smart person who has
> ever lived.

> It is the simple question about what math means as
> it relates to our physical reality.
>

[Hogbin]
One again, I am afraid that I do not understand you.

[O'Barr]

> The only way you could post what you are posting would be

> with a specific intent to confuse and to be difficult,...

[Hogbin]
Not at all. But I do think that you will find it hard to find a
definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.

> [O'Barr]

> You seem to reject the ether
> because you can find a few questions that the ether does not
> yet answer.

[Hogbin]

> I am sorry that this is used as a scientific
> reason to reject it. I guess SR has no unanswered questions.
> If this is what you think, then I understand why the SR experts
> are so dumb. What is being done is that the ether is superior
> to SR, not that the ether answers every question, but that it
> answers more questions than SR.

[Hogbin]
What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?

GLOBARR

unread,

May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00

In <392DAB23...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Ref: <392805DC...@bromleyinstruments.co.uk>
<20000522153200...@ng-fk1.aol.com>

>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .

> A physical theory has to be what is said, it has to be
> physical.

[Hogbin]
You have still not explained what you mean by this. I have
tried to guess but with no success.

[O'Barr]

> And some physical theories are better than others.
> You judge the differences between theories by how well they
> accomplish this requirement of being physical. Surely you
> are sensitive to all this!!!!

[Hogbin]
No. I do not know what you mean.

[O'Barr]
> And no physical theory is perfect.
> All physical theories must end at some point where only
> assumptions remain.

[Hogbin]
Yes, I have no objection to this.

O'Barr comments:
But how can you really say you have no objections if you do
not really know what physical means? I personally believe you
really do know what I mean, and all you are doing is trying to
escape the obvious fact that your SR concept is not a physical
theory, like PV = nRT is a physical theory, but it is just a
math theory, such as Newtonian gravity theory is, and thus is
not as good of a theory as the ether approach!

[O'Barr]
> Are you really being serious in any of your questions?

[Hogbin]
Yes, I really am trying to understand what you mean by
physical. Please tell me, without using the word 'physical'.

O'Barr comments:
And why is it important for me to tell you? Why should we
even spend time on such an obvious thing? Why, why? There
are several ongoing threads on subjects where physical
approaches and answers are compared to math approaches. Do you
think any of these discussions are limited because ***I****
haven't declared what I think physical means, and ***I***
haven't done this without using the word physical? To me, you
are playing the normal SR game of making something into a word
fight. Why don't you start us off by saying what problems you
see if someone were to use one definition or another? Now
wouldn't that be more fair and more honest? If you do not see
any problems, then why come to me? By doing these stupid
things you are just escaping your real problem: The ether
approach is superior to SR!

>
O'Barr wrote about Hogbin's use of the word `real': . . .

>What does `real physics' have to do with a theory being a
>physical theory?

[Hogbin]
I do not know. I was just trying to have a guess at what you
might mean by a physical theory. Obviously I was wrong.

O'Barr comments:
If you were really trying to find out, why didn't you use
the specific examples that were presented, PV = nRT and
gravity? Surely you know the differences in these theories!

>
> [O'Barr]
> ... for F = G*m1*m2/r^2, there are no physical understanding

> behind this math. We have no way to tell why it works, or
> how it works, or with what limitations we should expect, or
> even if it was just an accident.
>
> [Hogbin]
> Newton's law of gravitation is not, on the other hand,
> based on any pre-existing theory.
> Are you saying that all laws of physics must be based on
> pre-existing laws to be 'real'?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Are you just trying to be confusing? The kinetic theory of
> gases is not a physical theory because it used any pre-

> existing theory. It is a physical theory because it is based

> upon physical acts of physical particles. It does not matter
> if these physical acts were previously known or not. It does
> not matter is the particles were previously known or not.
> What matters is if these acts and particles can be accepted
> to be physical, and they are acceptable, and their acts can
> be mathematically described as a physical system! And the
> physical system works!
>

[Hogbin]
It's physical because it's physical. I know it is hard to
explain a concept but please have a go. What do you mean by
physical?

O'Barr comments:
And since on this net we are all using such words all the
time, I again make the same counter offer to you. Why don't
you tell me what bothers you about all this? This sure would
be easier than for me to guess what your problem is. I see no
problems in reading these other posts where physical things are
mentioned. I see no problems in this post. All I see is you
trying to make a problem where none exists! Shame on you!

> It is the simple question about what math means as
> it relates to our physical reality.
>

[Hogbin]
One again, I am afraid that I do not understand you.

O'Barr comments:
Yes! How convenient! I am sorry if I am so confusing and
so deep that you cannot possibly understand what I mean when I
say something is physical. If you were really in this state,
then I am sure it would be of no value to continue!

[O'Barr]
> The only way you could post what you are posting would be
> with a specific intent to confuse and to be difficult,...

[Hogbin]
Not at all. But I do think that you will find it hard to find
a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.

O'Barr comments:
And how hard should we all laugh?
What would Dennis say about this? What would Arlin say?
What would Ilja say? What would anyone say who believes in the
ether? Somehow, you must be trying to be funny! We have no
troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical theory,
and in SR, all you have is math. All you can say is that the
math causes all these funny things to happen, and you cannot
even say how the math does it. You cannot say where the math
exists, and when the math does it, and how the math does it.
All you can say is just that it happens. What a sick science
you have! It is more than just funny. It is Voodoo! It is
impossible! It is laughable! And you call yourself educated?

> [O'Barr]
> You seem to reject the ether because you can find
> a few questions that the ether does not yet answer.

> I am sorry that this is used as a scientific
> reason to reject it. I guess SR has no unanswered questions.
> If this is what you think, then I understand why the SR
> experts are so dumb. What is being done is that the ether is
> superior to SR, not that the ether answers every question,
> but that it answers more questions than SR.

[Hogbin]
What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?

O'Barr comments:
And now I know that you are not serious. There have been
many statements made as to how the ether answers questions that
SR does not. The ether even explains SR. To me, you are the
sickest of the sick. You are not being fair. You are not
being honest. How dare you infer that you do not know of one
single advantage of the ether. No truly scientific person
could say they cannot list advantages and disadvantages to both
such theories. Only a very prejudicial person would indicate
that there were no questions that the ether would answer that
was not answered by SR. Why have you stepped to such lows?
Do you really think that a theory (any theory) is worth your
intellectuality? What is in your mind that prevents you from
being at least fair? You really are in need of a friend, and
I would suggest that you stop posting until you find a friend
that can read what you are posting before you post. You are
not being very smart!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00

> >
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .
> > A physical theory has to be what is said, it has to be
> > physical.

> I personally believe you
> really do know what I mean [by physical] , and all you are doing is

> trying to
> escape the obvious fact that your SR concept is not a physical
> theory, like PV = nRT is a physical theory, but it is just a
> math theory, such as Newtonian gravity theory is, and thus is
> not as good of a theory as the ether approach!
>

> > Are you really being serious in any of your questions?
>
> [Hogbin]
> Yes, I really am trying to understand what you mean by
> physical. Please tell me, without using the word 'physical'.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And why is it important for me to tell you? Why should we
> even spend time on such an obvious thing?

[MH]
Because you claim that the aether theory is better than SR because it is
physical and SR is not.

I cannot think of a definition of the word 'physical' that makes this
so.

[O'Barr]

> Why, why? There
> are several ongoing threads on subjects where physical
> approaches and answers are compared to math approaches. Do you
> think any of these discussions are limited because ***I****
> haven't declared what I think physical means, and ***I***
> haven't done this without using the word physical? To me, you
> are playing the normal SR game of making something into a word
> fight. Why don't you start us off by saying what problems you
> see if someone were to use one definition or another?
>
>

[Hogbin]
There is little point in using my definition of physical. You are the
one who is using the word to claim that the aether is superior.

If you are going to convince people that the aether theory is superior
you are going to have to explain to them exactly what it is that makes
it so. You say that because it is a physical theory it is better but
you cannot explain to me what you mean by this.

> >
>
>
> O'Barr comments:
> If you were really trying to find out, why didn't you use
> the specific examples that were presented, PV = nRT and
> gravity? Surely you know the differences in these theories!
>
> >
> > [O'Barr]
> > ... for F = G*m1*m2/r^2, there are no physical understanding
> > behind this math. We have no way to tell why it works, or
> > how it works, or with what limitations we should expect, or
> > even if it was just an accident.
> >
> > [Hogbin]

I know the difference between the two theories but I do not understand
why you say that one is physical and one is not. I have tried to guess
what you mean but had no success. Why do you not just tell me?

>
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > Are you just trying to be confusing? The kinetic theory of
> > gases is not a physical theory because it used any pre-
> > existing theory. It is a physical theory because it is based
> > upon physical acts of physical particles. It does not matter
> > if these physical acts were previously known or not. It does
> > not matter is the particles were previously known or not.
> > What matters is if these acts and particles can be accepted
> > to be physical, and they are acceptable, and their acts can
> > be mathematically described as a physical system! And the
> > physical system works!
> >
>
> [Hogbin]
> It's physical because it's physical. I know it is hard to
> explain a concept but please have a go. What do you mean by
> physical?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And since on this net we are all using such words all the
> time, I again make the same counter offer to you. Why don't
> you tell me what bothers you about all this? This sure would
> be easier than for me to guess what your problem is. I see no
> problems in reading these other posts where physical things are
> mentioned. I see no problems in this post. All I see is you
> trying to make a problem where none exists! Shame on you!
>
>

[Hogbin]
What a strange answer. You are the one making a claim that LET is a
physical theory and SR is not. Why not tell me what you mean by
physical.

I know what physical means in normal speech. Greed and enthusiasm are
not physical things. Air and water are physical things because I can
touch or feel them, they can be bottled and moved from one place to
another.

Aether cannot be touched or felt or bottled therefore in the normal
sense of the word it is not a physical thing.

If the meaning is extended to include concepts like 'has a measurable
effect' the the aether could be described as physical but all the
effects of SR are also measurable.

> >
> > [O'Barr]
> > > Therefore, you tell me, is SR a math theory or is it a
> > > physical theory?
> >
> > [Hogbin]
> > You are making a distinction that I do not understand.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > And so it appears to be. And thus I will stop this post at
> > this unexplainable point. You, an educated person, one who
> > evidently can use a computer, and can post to
> > sci.physics.relativity, just will not admit to knowing things
> > that were discussed by Newton and every smart person who has
> > ever lived.
>
> > It is the simple question about what math means as
> > it relates to our physical reality.
> >
>
> [Hogbin]
> One again, I am afraid that I do not understand you.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes! How convenient! I am sorry if I am so confusing and
> so deep that you cannot possibly understand what I mean when I
> say something is physical. If you were really in this state,
> then I am sure it would be of no value to continue!
>

[Hogbin]
Let me try another guess then, as you refuse to tell me what you mean.
Are you referring to the idea that in LET rods 'physically' shrink?

>
> [O'Barr]
> > The only way you could post what you are posting would be
> > with a specific intent to confuse and to be difficult,...
>
> [Hogbin]
> Not at all. But I do think that you will find it hard to find
> a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And how hard should we all laugh?
> What would Dennis say about this? What would Arlin say?
> What would Ilja say? What would anyone say who believes in the
> ether?

[Hogbin]
I do not know. Why do you not tell me?

[O'Barr]

> Somehow, you must be trying to be funny! We have no
> troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical theory,
> and in SR, all you have is math. All you can say is that the
> math causes all these funny things to happen, and you cannot
> even say how the math does it. You cannot say where the math
> exists, and when the math does it, and how the math does it.
>

> All you can say is just that it happens.

[Hogbin]
As does the aether theory about clock slowing and rod shrinkage.

>
>
> > [O'Barr]
> > You seem to reject the ether because you can find
> > a few questions that the ether does not yet answer.
> > I am sorry that this is used as a scientific
> > reason to reject it. I guess SR has no unanswered questions.
> > If this is what you think, then I understand why the SR
> > experts are so dumb. What is being done is that the ether is
> > superior to SR, not that the ether answers every question,
> > but that it answers more questions than SR.
>
> [Hogbin]
> What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And now I know that you are not serious. There have been
> many statements made as to how the ether answers questions that
> SR does not. The ether even explains SR. To me, you are the
> sickest of the sick. You are not being fair. You are not
> being honest. How dare you infer that you do not know of one
> single advantage of the ether.

[Hogbin]
I did not imply this.

[O'Barr]

No truly scientific person could say they cannot list advantages and
disadvantages to both such theories.

[Hogbin]
I did this right at the start.

[O'Barr]

Only a very prejudicial person would indicate that there were no
questions that the ether would answer that was not answered by SR. Why
have you stepped to such lows?

[Hogbin]
Would it not be easier just to tell me what these questions are?

GLOBARR

unread,

May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00

In <39344A0C...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

. . . Let me try another guess (about what you mean about LET
being a physical theory.) Are you referring to the idea that

in LET rods 'physically' shrink?

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Certainly this is part of it. The ether is physical
because, by theory, it is said to be physical. And by theory,
it is given a 3-D space in which it can be physical. And
because it is physical, then physically it can result in light
having a fixed and absolute velocity. And because it is
physical, it can cause, by theory, the rates of physical
clocks to physically slow down with their velocities through
it, and it can cause the physical lengths of physical rulers
to physically contract. And if all these physical things
were to physically occur, exactly as physically specified, you
would get a physical reality in which the math of SR would
perfectly work!
And so, at this point, after all these physical details are
in place, then, and only then, would you apply any math to
obtain SR. By doing things this way, then every detail of the
math becomes defined by the physical. Every result and every
act is limited and controlled by the physical. And thus there
is a physical theory, from start to finish. Sorry about SR,
where there are no physical controls, and no physical limits,
and no physical definitions to go with the math! You have
nothing. But the ether has it all! Sorry about your poor
theory!

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .

> > The only way you could post what you are posting would be
> > with a specific intent to confuse and to be difficult,...
>
> [Hogbin]
> Not at all. But I do think that you will find it hard to
> find a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, but I have done this in almost every post that I
have posted. Even in this very post, as you can see above!

> O'Barr comments:
> And how hard should we all laugh?
> What would Dennis say about this? What would Arlin say?
> What would Ilja say? What would anyone say who believes in
> the ether?

[Hogbin wrote]

I do not know. Why do you not tell me?

[O'Barr]
> Somehow, you must be trying to be funny! We have no
> troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical
> theory, and in SR, all you have is math. All you can say is
> that the math causes all these funny things to happen, and
> you cannot even say how the math does it. You cannot say
> where the math exists, and when the math does it, and how
> the math does it.
> All you can say is just that it happens.

[Hogbin wrote]

As does the aether theory about clock slowing and rod
shrinkage.

O'Barr comments:
By allowing 3-D space, with a real physical ether, we
provide a material (physical) ether that can physically
interact with physical clocks and physical rulers. The ether
has physical proximity to all things that it affects. It
meets every requirement for cause and effect relationships.
It has one or more functions that are monotonic to the effect,
and by all this, escapes your Voodoo.

>
> > [O'Barr]
> > You seem to reject the ether because you can find
> > a few questions that the ether does not yet answer.
> > I am sorry that this is used as a scientific
> > reason to reject it. I guess SR has no unanswered
> > questions. If this is what you think, then I understand
> > why the SR experts are so dumb. What is being done is
> > that the ether is superior to SR, not that the ether
> > answers every question, but that it answers more questions
> > than SR.
>
> [Hogbin]
> What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?

O'Barr comments:
In the ether, it is exactly clear what theoretically occurs
in our reality. There are no uncertainties in these physical
acts, or events, or relationships. In SR, you cannot tell us
exactly what occurs, whether clocks really slow down or not,
or anything specifically. All you can say is what is
measured. Well, with the ether, we can tell you what can
actually physically happen, as well as what is measured. And
we present physical causes, and it is all understandable, and
reasonable, and doable, and logical. And it makes sufficient
sense that there will never again be kooks, and a need for a
special sic.physics.relativity net just to isolate the kooks!
So you tell me, how could you not see any of these answers???
Why can you not see the physical differences between these two
theories? Why are you being so dumb, and difficult? Is it
all on purpose??????

> O'Barr comments:
> And now I know that you are not serious. There have been
> many statements made as to how the ether answers questions
> that SR does not. The ether even explains SR. To me, you
> are the sickest of the sick. You are not being fair. You
> are not being honest. How dare you infer that you do not
> know of one single advantage of the ether.

[Hogbin]
I did not imply this.

[O'Barr]
No truly scientific person could say they cannot list
advantages and disadvantages to both such theories.

[Hogbin]
I did this right at the start.

[O'Barr]
Only a very prejudicial person would indicate that there were
no questions that the ether would answer that was not answered
by SR. Why have you stepped to such lows?

[Hogbin]
Would it not be easier just to tell me what these questions
are?

O'Barr comments:
Is this the same problem as with your saying you cannot
understand what is different between theories that are just
math equations and those that are based on physical
assumptions? You are an intelligent person. You know what
physical things are. You know what the ether theory is. And
you know what SR is. In SR, you are required to say you
believe in things that are physically impossible. Just
because the math works, does not mean that you are smart to
believe in things that are impossible. SR math does not
require you to believe what you say it says! Since the ether
uses the identical math, and its math does not require you to
believe in 4-D, then you lie if you say you have to believe in
4-D! The SR experts are at a low in being scientific, and all
this is going to end! Your lies are going to have to be done
away with. And you cannot continue to say that you do not
understand! Because you do! And it is sick for you to
ignore these problems!

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
> > [Hogbin]
> > Not at all. But I do think that you will find it hard to find
> > a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > And how hard should we all laugh?
> > What would Dennis say about this? What would Arlin say?
> > What would Ilja say? What would anyone say who believes in the
> > ether?
>
> [Hogbin]
> I do not know. Why do you not tell me?

I can suggest you to try "EPR-realistic + causal". It seems quite
normal from point of view of the common sense notion of "physical" not
to name a theory which denies common sense realism or causality
"physical". (Of course, relativists name a theory physical if it
makes predictions, without bothering about its metaphysics).

In this case, the violation of Bell's inequality makes LET superiour
to SR.

> > [Hogbin]
> > What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?

Why we have relativistic symmetry.

Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>, http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
>>>>> a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.

>>>> What would Ilja say?

>>> I do not know. Why do you not tell me?

>> I can suggest you to try "EPR-realistic + causal".

> [Hogbin]
> I do not see how this can be a definition of 'physical'.

Once it was a property of the classical physical theories before 1900,
it could have been considered at this time as a necessary property of
reasonable physical theories in general.

Its clear that this definition of "physical" differs from the
relativistic mainstream definition, but this is not the point - the
question (see first line) was about a definition of "physical" with
certain properties.

> I agree that the results of EPR experiments are a challenge to
> relativity but they are still consistent with it since no
> information is transmitted faster than light.

They are only consistent with relativity if you reject classical
realism or causality. This is done in RQFT and makes it "unphysical"
if you consider classical realism and causality as necessary parts of
all physical theories.

Instead, ether theory is compatible with classical realism, classical
causality and Aspects experiment. This does not yet make it a
"physical theory" if classical realism and causality are considered
only as necessary conditions.

> You will have to explain to me how the aether deals with the results
> of EPR better than SR.

Very simple - in LET you cannot prove Bell's theorem. The point is
that LET causality does not forbid FTL effects, it forbids only that
their observable effects violate Lorentz-covariance. This is not
sufficient for Bell's proof.

No proof of Bell's inequality -> no problem with its observed violation.

> The aether is only causal in so far as its supporters say so. They
> claim that the aether causes the effects of SR but they cannot say
> how.

This was true for old LET, but not for GET which derives the EEP.

>> It seems quite normal from point of view of the common sense notion
>> of "physical" not to name a theory which denies common sense
>> realism or causality "physical".

> [Hogbin] It would be better to call such a theory 'contrary to
> common sense'. I cannot see any connection with the word 'physical'.

I do not suggest that this is the best name. I simply suggest you to
understand his use of "physical" in the sense "realistic and causal"
and his claim that LET is physical but SR not becomes completely
justified.

I prefer to name it "realistic and causal".

>> (Of course, relativists name a theory physical if it
>> makes predictions, without bothering about its metaphysics).

> I agree that EPR is relativity but this is not really a description
> of physical.

Don't understand what you want to tell me here.

>> In this case, the violation of Bell's inequality makes LET superiour
>> to SR.

> EPR results are consistent with SR as no information is transmitted
> faster than light.

Only if you reject realism or causality.

>>>> What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?

>> Why we have relativistic symmetry.

> I do not understand this. Please explain further.

Start with the assumptions of GET (gr-qc/001101) and you obtain a
metric theory of gravity - that means a theory where the EEP holds.
Thus, in GET the EEP is derived, in GR an axiom.

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00

> .
> .[Hogbin]

>
> . . . Let me try another guess (about what you mean about LET
> being a physical theory.) Are you referring to the idea that
> in LET rods 'physically' shrink?
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> Certainly this is part of it. The ether is physical
> because, by theory, it is said to be physical.

[Hogbin]
You are not explaining much.

[O'Barr]

> And by theory,
> it is given a 3-D space in which it can be physical.

[Hogbin]
I have agreed that 3-D space is an advantage of the aether theory.

[O'Barr]

> [O'Barr]
> > What would Ilja say?
>
> [Hogbin wrote]

Ilja Schmelzer has given me a definition of 'physical' which does not
seem to correspond to your usage of the word. Let me know if this is
what you mean by it.

> [O'Barr]
> > Somehow, you must be trying to be funny! We have no
> > troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical
> > theory, and in SR, all you have is math. All you can say is
> > that the math causes all these funny things to happen, and
> > you cannot even say how the math does it. You cannot say
> > where the math exists, and when the math does it, and how
> > the math does it.
> > All you can say is just that it happens.
>
> [Hogbin wrote]
> As does the aether theory about clock slowing and rod
> shrinkage.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> By allowing 3-D space, with a real physical ether, we
> provide a material (physical) ether that can physically
> interact with physical clocks and physical rulers.

[Hogbin]
I think this is where we started. In what sense in the aether
physical? It cannot be touched or bottled. It does not consist of any
known substance. It has no properties that can be measured.

[O'Barr]

> The ether
> has physical proximity to all things that it affects.

[Hogbin]
Are you saying that proximity is necessary for any effect to be real?

[O'Barr]

> It meets every requirement for cause and effect relationships.
> It has one or more functions that are monotonic to the effect,
> and by all this, escapes your Voodoo.
>
> >
> > > [O'Barr]
> > > You seem to reject the ether because you can find
> > > a few questions that the ether does not yet answer.
> > > I am sorry that this is used as a scientific
> > > reason to reject it. I guess SR has no unanswered
> > > questions. If this is what you think, then I understand
> > > why the SR experts are so dumb. What is being done is
> > > that the ether is superior to SR, not that the ether
> > > answers every question, but that it answers more questions
> > > than SR.
> >
> > [Hogbin]
> > What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?
>

> [O'Barr ]

> In the ether, it is exactly clear what theoretically occurs
> in our reality.

[Hogbin]
Not to me.

[O'Barr]

> There are no uncertainties in these physical
> acts, or events, or relationships. In SR, you cannot tell us
> exactly what occurs, whether clocks really slow down or not,
> or anything specifically. All you can say is what is
> measured.

[Hogbin]
I what way are things that occur but cannot be measured part of physics?

[O'Barr]

> Well, with the ether, we can tell you what can
> actually physically happen, as well as what is measured. And
> we present physical causes, and it is all understandable, and
> reasonable, and doable, and logical.

[Hogbin]
You have not presented a single physical cause.

>
>
> > O'Barr comments:

> >How dare you infer that you do not
> > know of one single advantage of the ether.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I did not imply this.
>
> [O'Barr]
> No truly scientific person could say they cannot list
> advantages and disadvantages to both such theories.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I did this right at the start.
>
> [O'Barr]
> Only a very prejudicial person would indicate that there were
> no questions that the ether would answer that was not answered
> by SR. Why have you stepped to such lows?
>
> [Hogbin]
> Would it not be easier just to tell me what these questions
> are?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Is this the same problem as with your saying you cannot
> understand what is different between theories that are just
> math equations and those that are based on physical
> assumptions? You are an intelligent person. You know what
> physical things are. You know what the ether theory is.

[Hogbin]
I do indeed know what physical things are, and the aether is not one of
them.

[O'Barr]

> And
> you know what SR is. In SR, you are required to say you
> believe in things that are physically impossible.

> [Hogbin]

All I can say is that you have failed to convince me that the aether is
physical in any sense of the word that I can understand.

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

> Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
> >>>>> a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.

> >>>> What would Ilja say?

> >>> I do not know. Why do you not tell me?

> >> I can suggest you to try "EPR-realistic + causal".
> > [Hogbin]
> > I do not see how this can be a definition of 'physical'.
>
> Once it was a property of the classical physical theories before 1900,
> it could have been considered at this time as a necessary property of
> reasonable physical theories in general.
>
> Its clear that this definition of "physical" differs from the
> relativistic mainstream definition, but this is not the point - the
> question (see first line) was about a definition of "physical" with
> certain properties.

Although I asked for a definition of the word it has to be one that is consistent
with the English language. You seem to be using the word to mean 'good physics'.
I do not think that this was what O'Barr was getting at.

>
>
> > I agree that the results of EPR experiments are a challenge to
> > relativity but they are still consistent with it since no
> > information is transmitted faster than light.
>
> They are only consistent with relativity if you reject classical
> realism or causality. This is done in RQFT and makes it "unphysical"
> if you consider classical realism and causality as necessary parts of
> all physical theories.
>
> Instead, ether theory is compatible with classical realism, classical
> causality and Aspects experiment. This does not yet make it a
> "physical theory" if classical realism and causality are considered
> only as necessary conditions.
>
> > You will have to explain to me how the aether deals with the results
> > of EPR better than SR.
>
> Very simple - in LET you cannot prove Bell's theorem. The point is
> that LET causality does not forbid FTL effects, it forbids only that
> their observable effects violate Lorentz-covariance. This is not
> sufficient for Bell's proof.
>

So the aether lets you go faster than light so long as no one is looking.
I am not so sure that this is very different from the SR position, which does not
forbid FTL effects that do not transmit information or transport mass.

>
> No proof of Bell's inequality -> no problem with its observed violation.
>
> > The aether is only causal in so far as its supporters say so. They
> > claim that the aether causes the effects of SR but they cannot say
> > how.
>
> This was true for old LET, but not for GET which derives the EEP.

We were talking about LET.

>
>
> >> It seems quite normal from point of view of the common sense notion
> >> of "physical" not to name a theory which denies common sense
> >> realism or causality "physical".
>
> > [Hogbin] It would be better to call such a theory 'contrary to
> > common sense'. I cannot see any connection with the word 'physical'.
>
> I do not suggest that this is the best name. I simply suggest you to
> understand his use of "physical" in the sense "realistic and causal"
> and his claim that LET is physical but SR not becomes completely
> justified.

You think this is what O'Barr means by physical. Although I have to admit that I
am not sure what he means , I do not think that he means this. For example, would
you agree that Newton's law of gravitation is not physical.

> I prefer to name it "realistic and causal".

So would I, although I still do not agree that this decryption applies to LET and
not SR. The problem is with QM.

>
> >> (Of course, relativists name a theory physical if it
> >> makes predictions, without bothering about its metaphysics).
>
> > I agree that EPR is relativity but this is not really a description
> > of physical.
>
> Don't understand what you want to tell me here.
>

Neither do I! I think I must have left some words out.

>
> >> In this case, the violation of Bell's inequality makes LET superiour
> >> to SR.
>
> > EPR results are consistent with SR as no information is transmitted
> > faster than light.
>
> Only if you reject realism or causality.
>

> >>>> What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?
>

> >> Why we have relativistic symmetry.
>
> > I do not understand this. Please explain further.
>
> Start with the assumptions of GET (gr-qc/001101) and you obtain a
> metric theory of gravity - that means a theory where the EEP holds.
> Thus, in GET the EEP is derived, in GR an axiom.

This is really a different subject now but perhaps you could answer some questions
on your GET.

What exactly is the aether?

Does your theory agree with all experimental results to date?

Does your theory make any predictions that differ from those of GR concerning the
outcome of any experiments in progress?

Does yout theory use Euclidean space and time?

Is your theory simpler than GR?

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>> a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.

>>>>>> What would Ilja say?

>>>>> I do not know. Why do you not tell me?

>>>> I can suggest you to try "EPR-realistic + causal".
>>> [Hogbin]
>>> I do not see how this can be a definition of 'physical'.

>> Once it was a property of the classical physical theories before 1900,
>> it could have been considered at this time as a necessary property of
>> reasonable physical theories in general.

>> Its clear that this definition of "physical" differs from the
>> relativistic mainstream definition, but this is not the point - the
>> question (see first line) was about a definition of "physical" with
>> certain properties.

> Although I asked for a definition of the word it has to be one that
> is consistent with the English language. You seem to be using the
> word to mean 'good physics'. I do not think that this was what
> O'Barr was getting at.

I have been asked, I have given you my opinion. I do not use O'Barr's
notion of "physical" because I don't like to argue about words and
feel quite comfortable with the accepted language.

Words are simply labels for something we want to name. They may be
redefined in science and obtain a quite different meaning in science
and common use. Thus, giving you this definition I have not cared
about standard use of "physical" in English language.

>>> You will have to explain to me how the aether deals with the results
>>> of EPR better than SR.
>>
>> Very simple - in LET you cannot prove Bell's theorem. The point is
>> that LET causality does not forbid FTL effects, it forbids only that
>> their observable effects violate Lorentz-covariance. This is not
>> sufficient for Bell's proof.
>
> So the aether lets you go faster than light so long as no one is looking.

No, so long as it remains directly invisible. The violation of Bell's
inequality is observation, only an indirect one.

> I am not so sure that this is very different from the SR position,
> which does not forbid FTL effects that do not transmit information
> or transport mass.

Realistic SR requires Bell's inequality. Realistic ET is weaker, it
forbids only some observable effects. Non-realistic SR is only about
observable effects, reality behind observation has been given up. But
for what purpose? I do not really understand this idea - to give up
realism because realism does not fit with a particular pet theory
named relativity.

I acknowledge that the situation was quite different 1935, where SR/GR
have been beautiful theories without competitors, QM a
counterintuitive mess, and the situation with Bell's inequality not
well understood. But with GET + BM + realism as an alternative to
give up realism in favour of GR + QM looks quite strange.

>>> The aether is only causal in so far as its supporters say so. They
>>> claim that the aether causes the effects of SR but they cannot say
>>> how.
>>
>> This was true for old LET, but not for GET which derives the EEP.
>
> We were talking about LET.

Your choice. LET is the valid no-gravity approximation of GET.

But don't use age-old arguments against LET successfully answered by
GET. I do not use arguments against SR answered by GR too.

>>> [Hogbin] It would be better to call such a theory 'contrary to
>>> common sense'. I cannot see any connection with the word 'physical'.
>>
>> I do not suggest that this is the best name. I simply suggest you to
>> understand his use of "physical" in the sense "realistic and causal"
>> and his claim that LET is physical but SR not becomes completely
>> justified.
>
> You think this is what O'Barr means by physical.

Not exactly. I have solved the following problem:

>>>>>>> a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.

with a definition of "physical" which is not completely unreasonable.

> Although I have to admit that I am not sure what he means , I do not

> think that he means this. For example, would you agree that Newton's
> law of gravitation is not physical.

O'Barr's notion, I guess, requires something more than "realistic and
causal", closer to a mechanical model. But at least the part "SR not
so" does not change if the definition becomes even stronger.

>> I prefer to name it "realistic and causal".

> So would I, although I still do not agree that this decryption
> applies to LET and not SR. The problem is with QM.

QM itself does not have a problem with realism. That's proven - by
existence of Bohmian mechanics, which is realistic, deterministic, and
gives all QM predictions in its "quantum equilibrium".

The "problem" of Bohmian mechanics is exactly that it _requires_ a
preferred frame. That's why people don't like it.

>> Start with the assumptions of GET (gr-qc/001101) and you obtain a
>> metric theory of gravity - that means a theory where the EEP holds.
>> Thus, in GET the EEP is derived, in GR an axiom.

> This is really a different subject now but perhaps you could answer
> some questions on your GET.

> What exactly is the aether?

Something existing in a classical Newtonian background, and described
by variables we know from classical condensed matter theory: positive
density, velocity, symmetric pressure tensor, and unspecified
"material properties". Moreover, classical conservation laws are
fulfilled:

partial_t rho + partial_i rho v^i = 0
partial_t rho v^j + partial_i rho v^i v^j + p^ij = 0

The material properties and material laws are not specified, they
later become the "matter fields".

> Does your theory agree with all experimental results to date?

Yep. We have an effective GR Lagrangian + some cosmological terms.
Making them sufficiently small we obtain the Einstein equations. (But
even in this limit it is not exactly GR, causal loops and wormholes
remain forbidden.)

> Does your theory make any predictions that differ from those of GR
> concerning the outcome of any experiments in progress?

GR is restricted to flat topology, causal loops are forbidden, the
cosmological terms give a dark matter term and something which
transforms the big bang into a big bounce, and stops the gravitational
collapse near the Schwarzschild radius.

Thus, in GET we possibly need less dark matter and do not need
inflation to solve the cosmological horizon problem.

> Does yout theory use Euclidean space and time?

Yes.

> Is your theory simpler than GR?

Depends on position. You may argue that two additional terms means
more complex, but a lot of things are much simpler: conservation laws,
Hamilton formalism, local energy and momentum densities for gravity,
no BH and BB singularities, no topological foam, problem of time,
information loss problem during quantization.

Then there are some really beautiful math things which are unnecessary
in GR but essential for GET (ADM decomposition, harmonic coordinates).

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00

In <393A34FA...@hogbin.org.uk>

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

> . . . Let me try another guess (about what you mean about
> LET being a physical theory.) Are you referring to the idea
> that in LET rods 'physically' shrink?
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> Certainly this is part of it. The ether is physical
> because, by theory, it is said to be physical.

[Hogbin]
You are not explaining much.

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:

How much did you expect in two short lines?
Come on, Martin! LET is a very old theory. It has been
around for many, many years. And you want to complain to me
something about it? What is said is scientifically
sufficient! You are not being honest!

[O'Barr continued about the ether being physical]
> . . . And by theory,

> it is given a 3-D space in which it can be physical.

[Hogbin]
I have agreed that 3-D space is an advantage of the aether
theory.

O'Barr comments:
It is `an advantage.' By itself alone, it is sufficient
advantage to make the ether approach superior!

O'Barr wrote:
> And because it is physical,
> then physically it can result in light
> having a fixed and absolute velocity. And because it is
> physical, it can cause, by theory, the rates of physical
> clocks to physically slow down with their velocities through
> it, and it can cause the physical lengths of physical rulers
> to physically contract. And if all these physical things
> were to physically occur, exactly as physically specified,
> you would get a physical reality in which the math of SR
> would perfectly work!
> And so, at this point, after all these physical details
> are in place, then, and only then, would you apply any math
> to obtain SR. By doing things this way, then every detail
> of the math becomes defined by the physical. Every result
> and every act is limited and controlled by the physical.
> And thus there is a physical theory, from start to finish.
> Sorry about SR, where there are no physical controls,
> and no physical limits, and no physical definitions
> to go with the math! You have nothing.
> But the ether has it all! Sorry about your poor theory!

> > [Hogbin]
> > . . . I ... think that you will find it hard to find

> > a definition that makes aether physical but SR not so.
>

> [O'Barr]
> > ... We have no

> > troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical
> > theory, and in SR, all you have is math. All you can say
> > is that the math causes all these funny things to happen,

> > you cannot even say how the math does it. You cannot say

> > and where the math exists, and when the math does it, and

> > how the math does it.
> > All you can say is just that it happens.
>
> [Hogbin wrote]
> As does the aether theory about clock slowing and rod
> shrinkage.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> By allowing 3-D space, with a real physical ether, we
> provide a material (physical) ether that can physically
> interact with physical clocks and physical rulers.

[Hogbin]
I think this is where we started. In what sense in the aether
physical? It cannot be touched or bottled. It does not
consist of any known substance. It has no properties that can
be measured.

[O'Barr wrote:]

> The ether has physical proximity
> to all things that it affects.

[Hogbin]
Are you saying that proximity is necessary for any effect to
be real?

O'Barr comments:
What a state of stupor you are in!!! There is a whole
`science' that relates to causes. It is an accepted
requirement that all causes must have proximity to the effect
being caused. Your very question shows your unwillingness to
be scientific even in these basic areas! What a shame you are
to everyone on this net!
There is nothing in the ether theory that requires you to
be able to bottle it! Again, you violate every scientific
concept in requiring things that are not required by the
theory. The scientific way to refute a theory is not to say
that it does not tell you how to bake a pie. You show that it
makes incorrect predictions, has impossible requirements, or
has internally inconsistencies.

[O'Barr wrote about the ether theory:]

> It meets every requirement for cause and effect
> relationships. It has one or more functions that are
> monotonic to the effect, and by all this, escapes your
> Voodoo.

> > > [O'Barr wrote:]

> > > You seem to reject the ether because you can find
> > > a few questions that the ether does not yet answer.
> > > I am sorry that this is used as a scientific
> > > reason to reject it. I guess SR has no unanswered
> > > questions. If this is what you think, then I understand
> > > why the SR experts are so dumb. What is being done is
> > > that the ether is superior to SR, not that the ether
> > > answers every question, but that it answers more
> > > questions than SR.
> >
> > [Hogbin]
> > What questions does the aether answer that SR does not?
>
> [O'Barr ]
> In the ether, it is exactly clear what theoretically
> occurs in our reality.

[Hogbin]
Not to me.

O'Barr comments:
And by saying this, you admit your own defeat! The ether
theory (LET) has always been able to be clearly understood by
every person. It has never been rejected because it was not
clear in what occurs or in what it requires of reality. What
would a thinking person take your response to mean?

[O'Barr wrote:]

> There are no uncertainties in these physical acts,
> or events, or relationships. In SR, you cannot tell us
> exactly what occurs, whether clocks really slow down or not,
> or anything specifically. All you can say is what is
> measured.

[Hogbin]
I what way are things that occur but cannot be measured part
of physics?

[O'Barr wrote:]
> ... with the ether, we can tell you what can actually

> physically happen, as well as what is measured. And
> we present physical causes, and it is all understandable,
> and reasonable, and doable, and logical.

[Hogbin]
You have not presented a single physical cause.

O'Barr comments:

How about the ether? Wasn't it presented as a cause to the
constant speed of light? You are really sad!!!!!!

O'Barr comments:
But it is. Even by theory! You are being unscientific if you
are not willing to accept the theory as given!

[O'Barr wrote:]

> And you know what SR is. In SR, you are required to
> say you believe in things that are physically impossible.

> [Hogbin]
All I can say is that you have failed to convince me that the
aether is physical in any sense of the word that I can
understand.

O'Barr comments:
All that has happened is that you are defeated. Therefore,
as is normal for SR experts who have never had any good
physical answers to any of their problems, you try to turn
things into a word fight. And this is all this is. How dare
you say that you do not know and understand what the ether is
in terms of being physical! You personally are impossible,
and sick, and in need of help! Sorry that you religiously
cling to a sick theory, and would die rather than to admit
that your are in error, all over such an unimportant issue as
this!!!!!!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00

>
> >>> You will have to explain to me how the aether deals with the results
> >>> of EPR better than SR.
> >>
> >> Very simple - in LET you cannot prove Bell's theorem. The point is
> >> that LET causality does not forbid FTL effects, it forbids only that
> >> their observable effects violate Lorentz-covariance. This is not
> >> sufficient for Bell's proof.
> >
> > So the aether lets you go faster than light so long as no one is looking.
>
> No, so long as it remains directly invisible. The violation of Bell's
> inequality is observation, only an indirect one.
>
> > I am not so sure that this is very different from the SR position,
> > which does not forbid FTL effects that do not transmit information
> > or transport mass.
>
> Realistic SR requires Bell's inequality. Realistic ET is weaker, it
> forbids only some observable effects. Non-realistic SR is only about
> observable effects, reality behind observation has been given up. But
> for what purpose? I do not really understand this idea - to give up
> realism because realism does not fit with a particular pet theory
> named relativity.
>

Can you explain to me what you mean by realism. I am sorry to start discussing the
meaning of words again but you use this term a lot and it is important that I
understand what you mean by it.

>
> I acknowledge that the situation was quite different 1935, where SR/GR
> have been beautiful theories without competitors, QM a
> counterintuitive mess, and the situation with Bell's inequality not
> well understood. But with GET + BM + realism as an alternative to
> give up realism in favour of GR + QM looks quite strange.

GET+BM sounds interesting, you could call it a hidden universe theory.
Do you think that some aspects of the aether (Universe) are in principle hidden
forever or do you think that some day we will be able to know everything?

>
>
> >>> The aether is only causal in so far as its supporters say so. They
> >>> claim that the aether causes the effects of SR but they cannot say
> >>> how.
> >>
> >> This was true for old LET, but not for GET which derives the EEP.
> >
> > We were talking about LET.
>
> Your choice. LET is the valid no-gravity approximation of GET.
>
> But don't use age-old arguments against LET successfully answered by
> GET. I do not use arguments against SR answered by GR too.

Are you saying that GET explains why all forms of timekeeping device, whatever
their mechanism, are slowed by exactly the same amount by motion through the
aether? If so can you explain how.

>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> > The [realism] problem is with QM.

>
> QM itself does not have a problem with realism. That's proven - by
> existence of Bohmian mechanics, which is realistic, deterministic, and
> gives all QM predictions in its "quantum equilibrium".
>
> The "problem" of Bohmian mechanics is exactly that it _requires_ a
> preferred frame. That's why people don't like it.

>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > What exactly is the aether?
>
> Something existing in a classical Newtonian background, and described
> by variables we know from classical condensed matter theory: positive
> density, velocity, symmetric pressure tensor, and unspecified
> "material properties". Moreover, classical conservation laws are
> fulfilled:
>
> partial_t rho + partial_i rho v^i = 0
> partial_t rho v^j + partial_i rho v^i v^j + p^ij = 0
>
> The material properties and material laws are not specified, they
> later become the "matter fields".
>

It is interesting that the aether is described by classical condensed matter
theory, in other words it is good old 'stuff'. Yet it conspires to remain hidden.
In what sense does the aether actually exist?

>
> > Does your theory agree with all experimental results to date?
>
> Yep. We have an effective GR Lagrangian + some cosmological terms.
> Making them sufficiently small we obtain the Einstein equations. (But
> even in this limit it is not exactly GR, causal loops and wormholes
> remain forbidden.)
>
> > Does your theory make any predictions that differ from those of GR
> > concerning the outcome of any experiments in progress?
>
> GR is restricted to flat topology, causal loops are forbidden, the
> cosmological terms give a dark matter term and something which
> transforms the big bang into a big bounce, and stops the gravitational
> collapse near the Schwarzschild radius.
>
> Thus, in GET we possibly need less dark matter and do not need
> inflation to solve the cosmological horizon problem.

I was thinking of the gravity wave experiments in particular. If your theory
predicted different results from GR and those result were obtained from experiment
you would be in a much stronger position.

>
>
> > Does yout theory use Euclidean space and time?
>
> Yes.

How then does movement through space affect time?

>
>
> > Is your theory simpler than GR?
>
> Depends on position. You may argue that two additional terms means
> more complex, but a lot of things are much simpler: conservation laws,
> Hamilton formalism, local energy and momentum densities for gravity,
> no BH and BB singularities, no topological foam, problem of time,
> information loss problem during quantization.
>
> Then there are some really beautiful math things which are unnecessary
> in GR but essential for GET (ADM decomposition, harmonic coordinates).
>

I will have to take your word for that, I do not understand the maths terms that
you are referring to.

Would concrete proof of the existence of a black hole disprove GET?

Patrick Reany

unread,

Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00

Martin Hogbin wrote:
[snip]

>
> Can you explain to me what you mean by realism. I am sorry to start discussing the
> meaning of words again but you use this term a lot and it is important that I
> understand what you mean by it.
>

It is unnecessary to apologize for requesting definitions from any poster on this NG.
It is an obligation in any intellectual forum. O'Barr (whom I presume you're replying
to) presumably posts here of his own free will and is therefore obliged to give precise
definitions when asked to do so. But don't hold your breath waiting to get one from
him.

BTW, O'Barr feels that relativity is a "pet theory," but Newtonian physics is a
Galilean relativistic (covariant) theory. So how could 400 years of covariance at work
be called just a "pet theory"?

Patrick

Luc Bourhis

unread,

Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:53:01 +0100, Ilja Schmelzer wrote
(in message <i3gsnuw...@fermi.wias-berlin.de>):

> Very simple - in LET you cannot prove Bell's theorem. The point is
> that LET causality does not forbid FTL effects, it forbids only that
> their observable effects violate Lorentz-covariance. This is not
> sufficient for Bell's proof.

I have never understood this argument of yours. If you allow FTL
signal in LET different observers, with their own clocks, will see
a different time ordering of the same two events A and B separated
by a space-like interval. First this is in contradiction with the
notion of causality physicists have always been using. For any
observer time is what he reads on his own clocks and therefore past
and future becomes relative notions with your definition. Then you
state that the actual time ordering is the absolute one observed in
the Ether frame . But since this frame is completely arbitrary in
LET this definition is arbitrary as well. So it seems to me that to
save realism you transform causality in an empty shell.

--
Luc Bourhis

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

In <01HW.B5683E7E0...@news.freeserve.net>
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:

Ref: <392DAB23...@hogbin.org.uk>
<20000525215612...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
<39344A0C...@hogbin.org.uk>
<i3gu2fe...@fermi.wias-berlin.de>
<3936E7D5...@hogbin.org.uk>
<i3gsnuw...@fermi.wias-berlin.de>

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:53:01 +0100, Ilja Schmelzer wrote

(in <i3gsnuw...@fermi.wias-berlin.de>):

> Very simple - in LET you cannot prove Bell's theorem. The
> point is that LET causality does not forbid FTL effects, it
> forbids only that their observable effects violate Lorentz-
> covariance. This is not sufficient for Bell's proof.

Luc Bourhis

I have never understood this argument of yours. If you allow
FTL signal in LET different observers, with their own clocks,
will see a different time ordering of the same two events A and
B separated by a space-like interval. First this is in
contradiction with the notion of causality physicists have
always been using. For any observer time is what he reads on
his own clocks and therefore past and future becomes relative
notions with your definition. Then you state that the actual
time ordering is the absolute one observed in the Ether frame.
But since this frame is completely arbitrary in LET this
definition is arbitrary as well. So it seems to me that to
save realism you transform causality in an empty shell.

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
When you remain between zero and c, all predictions between
SR and LET are, by necessity, exactly the same: The same math;
the same results. But once you go beyond c, the ether makes a
prediction that under these conditions, a unique frame will
appear (could be found.) In this unique frame, there would be
found full symmetry, even for infinite velocities. SR cannot
state this, and in fact, if such were found, it would directly
violate the original assumptions of SR (SR does not allow for
any unique frame.) Therefore, as soon as we find any way to
obtain faster than light transmission, we could theoretically
test between SR and LET! And LET will be the winner! However,
anyone who will think, will not have to wait until this yet
future date, to see and understand the superiority of the
ether. Every thinking person can now see the superiority of
the ether. And we should do all this before we are forced to
do it!

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

In <394367C0...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

Ref: <393A34FA...@hogbin.org.uk>
<20000605162725...@ng-md1.aol.com>

Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .

I am pressing you for a definition of 'physical' as you use
it as a justification for almost everything that you claim.

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:

Hog wash!!!! Where is the word physical when I say that LET
and SR have the identical math? Where is the word physical
when I say that because of this, then all evidence supports LET
just as much as it supports SR? And where is the word physical
when I therefore say that the SR FAQ is therefore unscientific,
and SR experts are unscientific, and the belief in SR can only
be a personal choice?
You SR experts will stoop to anything, to include all these
word fights, just to support your own stupidity! I know of no
problems in defining this word `physical.' You have not
giving me any problems in using this word. Everything you do
is total defeat, to think that you cannot handle a simple word
like `physical'! You stink!

[O'Barr wrote, about the physical ether:]

> > . . . And by theory,
> > it is given a 3-D space in which it can be physical.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I have agreed that 3-D space is an advantage of the aether
> theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> It is `an advantage.' By itself alone, it is sufficient
> advantage to make the ether approach superior!
>

> O'Barr wrote (about the physical ether):

> > And because it is physical,
> > then physically it can result in light
> > having a fixed and absolute velocity. And because it is
> > physical, it can cause, by theory, the rates of physical
> > clocks to physically slow down with their velocities
> > through it, and it can cause the physical lengths of
> > physical rulers to physically contract. And if all these
> > physical things were to physically occur, exactly as
> > physically specified, you would get a physical reality in
> > which the math of SR would perfectly work!

[Hogbin]
This would all be fine if the aether gave us some signs of its
existence other than the effects purports to explain, and if it
gave us some indication of how these effects are brought about.

O'Barr comments:
Total hog wash! The ether only needs to do what it needs to
do to predict what SR predicts, and no more. This is all it
has to do to be superior! What you are asking is for it to be
able to answer everything. This is understandable, but totally
unscientific. You really ought to be ashamed!!!!!!

> > [O'Barr]
> > > ... We have no
> > > troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical
> > > theory, and in SR, all you have is math. All you can say
> > > is that the math causes all these funny things to happen,
> > > you cannot even say how the math does it. You cannot say
> > > and where the math exists, and when the math does it, and
> > > how the math does it.
> > > All you can say is just that it happens.
> >
> > [Hogbin wrote]
> > As does the aether theory about clock slowing and rod
> > shrinkage.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > By allowing 3-D space, with a real physical ether, we
> > provide a material (physical) ether that can physically
> > interact with physical clocks and physical rulers.

> [Hogbin wrote]

> I think this is where we started. In what sense in the
> aether physical? It cannot be touched or bottled. It does
> not consist of any known substance. It has no properties
> that can be measured.

> [O'Barr]

> There is nothing in the ether theory that requires you to
> be able to bottle it! Again, you violate every scientific
> concept in requiring things that are not required by the
> theory.

[Hogbin]
It is clear what occurs in so far as clock are required to slow
and rods to shrink; it has never been made clear how these
effects come about.

O'Barr comments:
Again, and again, total hog wash! Why do you persist in
such junk???? The light clock is a specific example of how at
least one clock naturally results in slowing down in the ether,
with the exact relationship required. And it is not up to the
ether people to support these assumptions of the theory to
begin with. Maybe you would like to do your job and show how
it is impossible for the ether assumptions to be correct?
And even Lorentz, way back in his day, was able to explain
that the shape of equal-potential fields, which certainly would
be involved in determining the length of rulers made of up
atoms using such potential fields, exactly conformed to the
equations being used. So I see you as a cry baby, having to
make up junk when any good physicist would be shouting for joy
at all these correlations!

[Hogbin] . . .
As I have explained above, if you are using 'physical' in its
ordinary everyday sense, then the aether clearly is not
physical as we cannot touch, feel, see, contain, measure, or
detect it. If you mean something other than this then please
tell me what it is.

O'Barr comments:
But according to the theory, you do not have to touch it!
You do not have to feel it, or see it, or do any of the things
you are implying!!!! Therefore, you are being scientifically
dishonest! And I am getting tired of your dishonesty.
In accordance with the ether theory, every physical object
that exists, every `ruler' and every `clock,' are physically
affected by their motions through the ether, in direct,
specified, physical ways. And every one of these physical ways
are confirmed by experiment. Therefore, the ether theory is
complete, and meets all experimental requirements to be a
scientific theory. For you to sit there and think of other
questions that are not yet answered, and which we do not even
know if they are even necessary to answer, is hog wash, just as
the rest of your post. When you get out of high school, I
would suggest that you learn some science. It might do you
some good!

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

In <3942F125...@xroads.com>
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:

Ref: <39421E76...@xroads.com>
<20000610161824...@ng-cg1.aol.com>

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> In terms of our definitional needs, it depends on the
> theory. If you take the kinetic theory of gases, it is a
> physical theory. . . .

Reany wrote:
Why is it a "physical theory"?

O'Barr (ignoring the above unnecessary question)
continues with what he wrote:
> Because it is a physical theory, and a very simple
> physical theory, definitions are not usually critical.
> In fact, once the physical process or interactions are made
> clear, the `physicalness' of the theory will, on its own,
> provide the understanding of almost every word used.

Reany wrote:
This is sophistry. In a formal system of deduction we must
provide axioms, definitions, and rules of deduction at a
minimum.

O'Barr wrote: . . .
> The ether theory is also itself a physical theory. And the
> physical base of the theory, again, automatically, clearly
> defines and establishes what physical means for this theory!
> To ask for a definition of what is physical, for a physical
> theory, is like saying you do not understand the theory.

Reany wrote:
I don't know one damn thing until it is framed in a formal
system. The best I can get outside a formal system is a
bunch of vague ideas. But what the heck: One person's vague
ideas are another person's dogma!

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:

Here is supposedly an educated SR expert who is saying
that he does not and cannot know LET, just because I will not
tell him what I think `physical' means! So be it!
When I first presented the need to correct SR philosophy,
and accept the superiority of the absolute approach (May,
1997), I presented my concepts of the ether in full detail,
and have done it several times since (and it is also still on
my home pages, and it has been there during all this time.)
Several SR experts became `unglued' because they thought
I was trying to claim LET as my theory. I was not really
assuming any originality to LET. I was only stating what
I was accepting as correct. I have always given credit to
Lorentz for the correct ether theory, but we must adopt the
approach as I present it. My way of presenting this theory
requires the clear separation between the physical assumptions
and the math. This puts things in the correct order. And
also, by doing this correctly, then the relationship to SR is
directly observable.

Now listen here, Reany. I would really love for you to
really find it to be really necessary for me to define
something about any of this!!!!! If it were necessary for me
to do this, then it would be my theory, and not Lorentz's. So
make up your mind! In a way, I could hope that that you are
right, that I need to define something. But I know you are
wrong, and thus you are not a very good scientist! How dare
you say that you do not understand! Do you really have no
shame??????

And so if you have any questions about LET, I would
suggest that you see Jim Carr, or any of these other SR
experts that have also been unable to see beyond their
religion. To the best of my knowledge, the term `physical'
was adequately handled within LET and all other physical
theories (such of the kinetic theory of gases) since the days
of Newton. I do not intend to be a baby sitter. If you show
a true concern or problem, of course I would be quick to help
if I can, but I see no problem.
Why do you see a problem in such a basic thing?
Do you have a problem with `real,' or with `contact,'
or with `absolute,' or with all these other words that
are also not specially defined? The only time you would
need to specially define a word would be if you were not
going to use the obvious meaning of the word, or if you
were going to entirely change the meaning of the word. I
know this is often done in SR, but such things are not
usually done in physical theories. Do you know of any
exceptions? The ether theory, as I know it, is as basic and
as simple and as direct as any theory I know. What could
possible allow you any concerns about how any word or concept
has been stated? It is really beyond me, and every word I
write here only tells me you are beyond help!

Patrick Reany

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

GLOBARR wrote:
> I know of no problems in defining this word `physical.'

Then you should have no difficulty in doing so.

Patrick

Patrick Reany

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

GLOBARR wrote:

> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> Here is supposedly an educated SR expert who is saying
> that he does not and cannot know LET, just because I will not
> tell him what I think `physical' means! So be it!

I don't know how YOU think of it.

> My way of presenting this theory
> requires the clear separation between the physical assumptions
> and the math.

How can your readers appreciate how to separate between math and
physical if you refuse to define "physical"?

> This puts things in the correct order. And
> also, by doing this correctly, then the relationship to SR is
> directly observable.

It's that important is it? Then define the terms within your version of
the theory.

> Now listen here, Reany. I would really love for you to
> really find it to be really necessary for me to define
> something about any of this!!!!!

Nonsense again. When I attempt to define a term in some theory that has
been around for awhile, I'm not trying to steal it as my own theory. And
often I try to find definitions given by the theory's original
proponents. I'm asking you to quit making up excuses and do the same for
the LET theory.

> If it were necessary for me
> to do this, then it would be my theory, and not Lorentz's.

Fine. What is Lorentz's definition of "physical," "physical theory," or
"physical object" as they would relate to our scientific reasoning here?
In your own opinion, of course. That will do nicely. Or provide
references to obtainable literature as the next best thing. But Lorentz
is dead and you have put yourself up as a champion for a theory so the
responsibility now falls to you.

> But I know you are
> wrong, and thus you are not a very good scientist!

I'm a great IT person, though.

> How dare
> you say that you do not understand! Do you really have no
> shame??????

I can count on O'Barr for a laugh.

> To the best of my knowledge, the term `physical'
> was adequately handled within LET and all other physical
> theories (such of the kinetic theory of gases) since the days
> of Newton. I do not intend to be a baby sitter.

I.e., you do not intend to get pinned down.

> Why do you see a problem in such a basic thing?
> Do you have a problem with `real,' or with `contact,'
> or with `absolute,' or with all these other words that
> are also not specially defined?

Indeed I do! What a short memory you have.

> The only time you would
> need to specially define a word would be if you were not
> going to use the obvious meaning of the word, or if you
> were going to entirely change the meaning of the word.

If physics were the domain of the common sense then I would agree with
you. But it's not.

> I
> know this is often done in SR, but such things are not
> usually done in physical theories.

Unfortunately, I agree with you. But I'm interjecting in this thread as
a semanticist. I'm interested in the consistent definition of the terms
used in every theory, in principle. I claim that most confusion about
all scientific theories comes because no one takes the time to formalize
them logically. I have criticized the physics establishment for this
over the years, and now I criticize you for the same thing. The
difference between you and the physics establishment is that it usually
has someone in it who is considerate enough to provide definitions when
asked to do so.

> Do you know of any

> exceptions? The ether theory, as I know it, is as basic and
> as simple and as direct as any theory I know.

In short, you don't want LET to rise to the level of a formal theory of
axioms, definitions, and rules of deductions, do you?

Patrick

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

In <39453AED...@xroads.com>
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>> I know of no problems in defining this word `physical.'
>

Reany wrote:
>Then you should have no difficulty in doing so.

O'Barr comments:
Perfectly correct!!!! I have no difficulties in doing it
or in not doing it. And neither should anyone else!
And it is done every time the theory is presented!

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

In <394544E8...@xroads.com>
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
> . . .
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .

> Here is supposedly an educated SR expert who is saying
> that he does not and cannot know LET, just because I will not
> tell him what I think `physical' means! So be it!

Reany wrote:
I don't know how YOU think of it.

O'Barr comments:
I know you don't. I have only written a thousand or two posts
on it. I will try and do better next time! Do you think three
thousands would do it?

O'Barr wrote:
> My way of presenting this theory
> requires the clear separation between the physical
> assumptions and the math.

Reany wrote:
How can your readers appreciate how to separate between math
and physical if you refuse to define "physical"?

O'Barr comments:
Maybe they can guess at it. Maybe a few could get it
correct if they were lucky. Trying to see the differences
between math and things that are physical, I guess, can really
be hard. But like I said, maybe some are good guessers!!!!!

O'Barr wrote (about putting physical things before the math):

> This puts things in the correct order. And
> also, by doing this correctly, then the relationship to SR is
> directly observable.

Reany wrote:
It's that important is it? Then define the terms within your
version of the theory.

O'Barr wrote:
> Now listen here, Reany. I would really love for you to
> really find it to be really necessary for me to define

> something about any of this!!!!! . . .

Reany wrote:
Nonsense again. When I attempt to define a term in some theory
that has been around for awhile, I'm not trying to steal it as
my own theory. And often I try to find definitions given by the
theory's original proponents. I'm asking you to quit making up
excuses and do the same for the LET theory.

O'Barr wrote:
> If it were necessary for me to do this,
> then it would be my theory, and not Lorentz's.

Reany wrote:
Fine. What is Lorentz's definition of "physical," "physical
theory," or "physical object" as they would relate to our
scientific reasoning here? In your own opinion, of course.
That will do nicely. Or provide references to obtainable
literature as the next best thing. But Lorentz is dead and you
have put yourself up as a champion for a theory so the
responsibility now falls to you.

O'Barr comments:
One thing is for sure, what I think is unimportant. What do
you think, Reany? Do you think that there really are
differences between math and physics? And between math and
what might be physical? Between physical reality and math aids
such as 4-D spacetime continuums? What do you think?

>
O'Barr wrote:
> The only time you would
> need to specially define a word would be if you were not
> going to use the obvious meaning of the word, or if you
> were going to entirely change the meaning of the word.

Reany wrote:
If physics were the domain of the common sense then I would
agree with you. But it's not.

O'Barr comments:
But why are you so blind? When you enter into the ether
theory, you enter into the domain of common sense. In the
ether, there are no special definitions. Everything,
absolutely everything, returns to simple Newtonian physics in
all areas! There are no special definitions or special
concepts. This is the power and the beauty and the simplicity
of the ether approach!

O'Barr wrote (about having to have special definitions):

> I know this is often done in SR, but such things
> are not usually done in physical theories.

Reany wrote:
Unfortunately, I agree with you.

O'Barr comments:
Of course you do. Everyone has to agree to what I am saying!

Reany wrote:
But I'm interjecting in this thread as a semanticist. I'm
interested in the consistent definition of the terms used in
every theory, in principle. I claim that most confusion about
all scientific theories comes because no one takes the time to
formalize them logically. I have criticized the physics
establishment for this over the years, and now I criticize you
for the same thing. The difference between you and the physics
establishment is that it usually has someone in it who is
considerate enough to provide definitions when asked to do so.

O'Barr comments:
But I have presented everything that is necessary. LET is
an established theory. And there are no weaknesses to this
theory due to any perceived problems with understanding the
word `physical.' If you think you have a problem with this
word, then please explain it. Otherwise, find something better
to do!

O'Barr wrote:
> Do you know of any exceptions?
> The ether theory, as I know it, is as basic and
> as simple and as direct as any theory I know.

Reany wrote:
In short, you don't want LET to rise to the level of a formal
theory of axioms, definitions, and rules of deductions, do you?

O'Barr comments:
Whether I live or die, neither you nor I can change the fact
that Lorentz was a great physicist, and he came the closest to
the correct understanding of our reality! I do not need to
defend this great and good man. And I do not need to defend
his theory. But we must adopt his theory so that we will have
a desire to consider the at theory. And we are now in this
process! You are going to lose your self respect if you do not
understand this. What you think is important, and we are going
to do things better than what we did 95 years ago!!!!

Patrick Reany

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

GLOBARR wrote:

> In <394544E8...@xroads.com>
> Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:

> O'Barr comments:
> But I have presented everything that is necessary. LET is
> an established theory. And there are no weaknesses to this
> theory due to any perceived problems with understanding the
> word `physical.' If you think you have a problem with this
> word, then please explain it. Otherwise, find something better
> to do!

Good advise.

Patrick

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/13/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
>>> I am not so sure that this is very different from the SR position,
>>> which does not forbid FTL effects that do not transmit information
>>> or transport mass.

>> Realistic SR requires Bell's inequality. Realistic ET is weaker, it
>> forbids only some observable effects. Non-realistic SR is only
>> about observable effects, reality behind observation has been given
>> up. But for what purpose? I do not really understand this idea - to
>> give up realism because realism does not fit with a particular pet
>> theory named relativity.

> Can you explain to me what you mean by realism. I am sorry to start
> discussing the meaning of words again but you use this term a lot
> and it is important that I understand what you mean by it.

See gr-qc/0001101 for details. But essentially we can use also the
EPR criterion of reality: 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.

>> I acknowledge that the situation was quite different 1935, where SR/GR
>> have been beautiful theories without competitors, QM a
>> counterintuitive mess, and the situation with Bell's inequality not
>> well understood. But with GET + BM + realism as an alternative to
>> give up realism in favour of GR + QM looks quite strange.

> GET+BM sounds interesting, you could call it a hidden universe
> theory. Do you think that some aspects of the aether (Universe) are
> in principle hidden forever or do you think that some day we will be
> able to know everything?

I'm not sure. Last not least, consisting ourself of atoms we have been
able to observe them. Thus, if we reach the critical domain where the
effects if ether atoms become important we will be able to learn more.

Thus this critical domain may as well remain hidden forever.

>> But don't use age-old arguments against LET successfully answered by
>> GET. I do not use arguments against SR answered by GR too.
>
> Are you saying that GET explains why all forms of timekeeping device, whatever
> their mechanism, are slowed by exactly the same amount by motion through the
> aether?

Yep.

> If so can you explain how.

In GET we have four conservation laws, as for usual matter. These
equations do not depend on material properties. The material
properties are the fields we observe (gauge fields and fermions).
Observing them we do not observe if the conservation laws hold or not.
If we omit these four equations, we obtain the solution only modulo
four unknown functions - the freedom of choice equivalent to GR diff
covariance.

To put this in formulas we need some assumptions about the Lagrange
formalism, because we need action = reaction. See my eprint.

>>> What exactly is the aether?
>>
>> Something existing in a classical Newtonian background, and described
>> by variables we know from classical condensed matter theory: positive
>> density, velocity, symmetric pressure tensor, and unspecified
>> "material properties". Moreover, classical conservation laws are
>> fulfilled:
>>
>> partial_t rho + partial_i rho v^i = 0
>> partial_t rho v^j + partial_i rho v^i v^j + p^ij = 0
>>
>> The material properties and material laws are not specified, they
>> later become the "matter fields".

> It is interesting that the aether is described by classical
> condensed matter theory, in other words it is good old 'stuff'. Yet
> it conspires to remain hidden. In what sense does the aether
> actually exist?

In the very real sense. If the theory is true, the ether exists,
moreover, everything is part of it. The conspiracy is explained by
the conspiracy that all other fields are material properties of the
ether. This gives them common properties - no momentum exchange terms
with the ether. Non-ether types of matter would have such terms and
therefore interact with the ether in another way, breaking the EEP.

> I was thinking of the gravity wave experiments in particular. If
> your theory predicted different results from GR and those result
> were obtained from experiment you would be in a much stronger
> position.

Yep, but my current guess is that there are no differences for waves.
(Not that I'm very sure about this.)

>>> Does yout theory use Euclidean space and time?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> How then does movement through space affect time?

See the equations.

>>> Is your theory simpler than GR?
>>
>> Depends on position. You may argue that two additional terms means
>> more complex, but a lot of things are much simpler: conservation laws,
>> Hamilton formalism, local energy and momentum densities for gravity,
>> no BH and BB singularities, no topological foam, problem of time,
>> information loss problem during quantization.
>>
>> Then there are some really beautiful math things which are unnecessary
>> in GR but essential for GET (ADM decomposition, harmonic coordinates).

> I will have to take your word for that, I do not understand the
> maths terms that you are referring to. Would concrete proof of the
> existence of a black hole disprove GET?

Not what is today considered to be a BH proof in GR context. That
means simply the existence of a massive body with small enough radius
so that GR requires a black hole to describe this. Possibly some
agreement with GR predictions in some environment. But this agreement
can be obtained by a sufficiently small parameter Upsilon of my
theory.

And afaiu to make the big bang a big bounce the parameter Upsilon has
to be so small to leave nothing observable for a star-sized BH.

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/13/00

Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>> Very simple - in LET you cannot prove Bell's theorem. The point is
>> that LET causality does not forbid FTL effects, it forbids only that

>> their observable effects violate Lorentz-covariance. This is not

>> sufficient for Bell's proof.

> I have never understood this argument of yours. If you allow FTL

> signal in LET different observers, with their own clocks, will see
> a different time ordering of the same two events A and B separated
> by a space-like interval.

In LET I allow hidden FTL signal transfer related with the preferred
time, which defines a preferred causality. The notion of causality
is, therefore, not related with the Lorentz frames of moving
observers.

The LET observer may use Einstein synchronization - but he never
assumes that it gives the correct synchronization. Instead, he knows
that Einstein synchronization gives real synchronization only if done
(by accident or correct guess) by an observer at rest.

> First this is in contradiction with the notion of causality
> physicists have always been using.

No, causality is always related with true time, not with measured
time. It has never been assumed that we can use distorted clocks to
make accurate predictions about causality.

> For any observer time is what he reads on his own clocks and
> therefore past and future becomes relative notions with your
> definition.

No, the LET observer knows that clocks are distorted and do not
measure exact time, but something else. That does not mean that he
will throw them away, he simply will not make unjustified
identifications.

> Then you state that the actual time ordering is the absolute one

> observed in the Ether frame . But since this frame is completely

> arbitrary in LET this definition is arbitrary as well. So it seems
> to me that to save realism you transform causality in an empty
> shell.

No, causality remains classical causality. We have no closed causal
loops, hidden or not. If there is no causal relation between two
experiments, we can prove Bell's inequality. Thus, the concept allows
to make nontrivial falsifiable predictions.

We cannot measure all, especially not absolute time and not the
direction of influence in Aspect's experiment. But this does not mean
that we have to give up simple fundamental principles.

Luc Bourhis

unread,

Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

> [...]

> The LET observer may use Einstein synchronization - but he never
> assumes that it gives the correct synchronization. Instead, he knows
> that Einstein synchronization gives real synchronization only if done
> (by accident or correct guess) by an observer at rest.

At rest with respect to what ? The Ether frame ? How can an
observer know that he is moving with respect to the Ether in LET ?

>> First this is in contradiction with the notion of causality
>> physicists have always been using.
>
> No, causality is always related with true time, not with measured
> time. It has never been assumed that we can use distorted clocks to
> make accurate predictions about causality.

Come on ! Causality has always been related to the time measured by
ideal clocks but it was believed that it was physically possible to
realize an absolute synchronization of all clocks (by using slow
clock transport for example) and therefore the distinction you make
did not matter in pre-Lorentzian theories. With LET the rules
change dramatically because such an absolute synchronization is not
possible anymore and furthermore there is no unambiguous way to
define a "true time".

>> So it seems to me that to save realism you transform causality
>> in an empty shell.

> [...] We cannot measure all, especially not absolute time and not the

> direction of influence in Aspect's experiment. But this does
> not mean that we have to give up simple fundamental principles.

With the classical notion of causality used by every physicist
since at least Galileo it is possible, at least theoretically, to
know whether X occurs before Y or whether Y occurs before X. With
your definition there is no way to answer such a question within
LET if X and Y are separated by spacelike intervals. Most
physicists have preferred to get rid of this kind of hidden "true"
or "real" things during this century and specifically they have
kept the strong version of causality which has always been used.

I find again your attitude quite hypocritical. You advocate the
existence of a "reality" but in order to save this concept from
experimental refutation you accept that the only knowledge we can
have of it is by using rather unusual probabilistic rules (the
impossibility of measuring conjugate variables at the same time)
and that causality is sometimes hidden. Frankly it is much simpler
to stick with the observables we have access to and to formalize a
theory from this point.

--
Luc Bourhis

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00

Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>> The LET observer may use Einstein synchronization - but he never
>> assumes that it gives the correct synchronization. Instead, he knows
>> that Einstein synchronization gives real synchronization only if done
>> (by accident or correct guess) by an observer at rest.
>
> At rest with respect to what ? The Ether frame ?

Yes.

> How can an observer know that he is moving with respect to the Ether
> in LET ?

For example, this may follow from his assumptions about the global
universe. He prefers (for simplicity) the idea that the global
universe is homogeneous, and therefore the frame of background
radiation is the preferred one.

But if he does not know it doesn't matter - making an error does not
have much consequences.

>>> First this is in contradiction with the notion of causality
>>> physicists have always been using.

>> No, causality is always related with true time, not with measured
>> time. It has never been assumed that we can use distorted clocks to
>> make accurate predictions about causality.

> Come on! Causality has always been related to the time measured by

> ideal clocks but it was believed that it was physically possible to
> realize an absolute synchronization of all clocks (by using slow
> clock transport for example) and therefore the distinction you make
> did not matter in pre-Lorentzian theories.

Read Newton, who makes an explicit difference between absolute time
and measurable time. For obvious metaphysical reasons:

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own
nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by
other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is
some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether
accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as
an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable
motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be
accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable
to no change."

It is clear that causality is related with true time, not with measure
of duration by motion.

> With LET the rules change dramatically because such an absolute
> synchronization is not possible anymore and furthermore there is no
> unambiguous way to define a "true time".

A possibility predicted by Newton: "It may be, that there is no
equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured".

>> [...] We cannot measure all, especially not absolute time and not
>> the direction of influence in Aspect's experiment. But this does
>> not mean that we have to give up simple fundamental principles.

> With the classical notion of causality used by every physicist
> since at least Galileo it is possible, at least theoretically, to
> know whether X occurs before Y or whether Y occurs before X. With
> your definition there is no way to answer such a question within
> LET if X and Y are separated by spacelike intervals.

As I have shown with Newtons definition, you are wrong about this.

> Most physicists have preferred to get rid of this kind of hidden
> "true" or "real" things during this century and specifically they
> have kept the strong version of causality which has always been
> used.

Not at all. Without realism causality becomes an empty shell.

> I find again your attitude quite hypocritical. You advocate the
> existence of a "reality" but in order to save this concept from
> experimental refutation you accept that the only knowledge we can
> have of it is by using rather unusual probabilistic rules (the
> impossibility of measuring conjugate variables at the same time) and
> that causality is sometimes hidden. Frankly it is much simpler to
> stick with the observables we have access to and to formalize a
> theory from this point.

Sorry, there is no such thing as experimental refutation of the
existence of reality.

I accept that we cannot observe everything, that we are sometimes
unable to distinguish really different situations by observation.

And, of course, nobody forbids you to restrict yourself to observable
effects. But to formalize a theory based on observation is simply the
positivistic fallacy.

Luc Bourhis

unread,

Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

>> How can an observer know that he is moving with respect to the Ether
>> in LET ?
>
> For example, this may follow from his assumptions about the global
> universe. He prefers (for simplicity) the idea that the global
> universe is homogeneous, and therefore the frame of background
> radiation is the preferred one.

This is not a frame Lorentz Ether Theory can deal with. You must
use a higher level theory. GET for example.

>> Come on! Causality has always been related to the time measured by
>> ideal clocks but it was believed that it was physically possible to
>> realize an absolute synchronization of all clocks (by using slow
>> clock transport for example) and therefore the distinction you make
>> did not matter in pre-Lorentzian theories.
>
> Read Newton, who makes an explicit difference between absolute time
> and measurable time. For obvious metaphysical reasons:
>
> "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own
> nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by
> other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is
> some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether
> accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as
> an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable
> motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be
> accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable
> to no change."
>
> It is clear that causality is related with true time, not with measure
> of duration by motion.

This paragraph is meaningless without a clear definition of the
word "accurately". What is the lower bound of the difference
between absolute and measured times ? Can the reading of our clocks
be as close as we want to absolute time ? Since every dynamical
equation in Newtonian mechanics makes use of absolute time and
since one must at some point introduce measured times to compare
theory and experiment, this lower bound had better to be very close
to zero if one wants Newtonian mechanics to have any predictive
power. Then to define causality with true time or with measured
time is equivalent within experimental accuracies. The situation is
completely different in LET because there are now systematic
effects which are completely unavoidable and easily measurable with
our best current clocks.

>> With the classical notion of causality used by every physicist
>> since at least Galileo it is possible, at least theoretically, to
>> know whether X occurs before Y or whether Y occurs before X. With
>> your definition there is no way to answer such a question within
>> LET if X and Y are separated by spacelike intervals.
>
> As I have shown with Newtons definition, you are wrong about this.

When I said theoretically I meant with ideal clocks. In LET there
is no unambiguous way to tell which event occurs before the other.
You implicitly admitted that above by picking a particular one, the
one in which the CMBR has a zero dipole.

>> Most physicists have preferred to get rid of this kind of hidden
>> "true" or "real" things during this century and specifically they
>> have kept the strong version of causality which has always been
>> used.
>
> Not at all. Without realism causality becomes an empty shell.

From a metaphysical point of view this could be debatable but I am
not interested in this kind of questions. However Quantum Mechanics
proves that realism is not necessary to construct models in
physics. On the contrary the concept of causality as it is used in
Einstein's theories has proved to be fundamental since quantum
field theories rely heavily on it for their definition (cf.
Weinberg's book "The quantum theory of fields for example, chapter
3) and it is one key ingredient of the demonstration of
spin-statistic theorem for example.

>> I find again your attitude quite hypocritical. You advocate the
>> existence of a "reality" but in order to save this concept from
>> experimental refutation you accept that the only knowledge we can
>> have of it is by using rather unusual probabilistic rules (the
>> impossibility of measuring conjugate variables at the same time) and
>> that causality is sometimes hidden. Frankly it is much simpler to
>> stick with the observables we have access to and to formalize a
>> theory from this point.
>
> Sorry, there is no such thing as experimental refutation of the
> existence of reality.

This has nothing to do with what I wrote.

> And, of course, nobody forbids you to restrict yourself to observable
> effects. But to formalize a theory based on observation is simply the
> positivistic fallacy.

Quantum mechanics is the one proof that shows that a form of
Positivism can be successful. It has really been a driving force in
the construction of this theory. Heisenberg's formulation is
inspired by positivist ideas. He even invented quantum field
theories by continuing to walk on the path he opened with his
mechanics of matrices which is almost the prototype of a positivist
theory, a path which lead him to the quantization of the
electromagnetic field.

Anyway you did not really answer my criticisms. Your concept of
reality is very elastic. You accept for example that it is ruled by
Bohmian mechanics which is tailored such as to reproduce
probabilistic behaviours which have nothing to do with what is seen
in classical stochastic systems. As Ether is not detectable in LET,
this reality is definitively hidden in Bohmian mechanics, in both
case not because of the limitation of our experimental tools but
because of the way these theories are constructed. I do not see any
value in this kind of metaphysical manipulations and/or
reinterpretations. I do only care for concepts which have a genuine
predictive power. That's why relativistic causality is much more
valuable than realism.

--
Luc Bourhis

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00

>
>
> Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .
> I am pressing you for a definition of 'physical' as you use
> it as a justification for almost everything that you claim.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> Hog wash!!!! Where is the word physical when I say that LET
> and SR have the identical math? Where is the word physical
> when I say that because of this, then all evidence supports LET
> just as much as it supports SR? And where is the word physical
> when I therefore say that the SR FAQ is therefore unscientific,
> and SR experts are unscientific, and the belief in SR can only
> be a personal choice?

[Hogbin]
I meant your claim that LET was superior to SR. I could quote a dozen
times from your earlier posts where you have claimed that LET is better
because it is physical without ever once defining what you mean by this.

>
>
> [O'Barr wrote, about the physical ether:]
> > > . . . And by theory,
> > > it is given a 3-D space in which it can be physical.
> >
> > [Hogbin]
> > I have agreed that 3-D space is an advantage of the aether
> > theory.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > It is `an advantage.' By itself alone, it is sufficient
> > advantage to make the ether approach superior!
> >
> > O'Barr wrote (about the physical ether):
> > > And because it is physical,
> > > then physically it can result in light
> > > having a fixed and absolute velocity. And because it is
> > > physical, it can cause, by theory, the rates of physical
> > > clocks to physically slow down with their velocities
> > > through it, and it can cause the physical lengths of
> > > physical rulers to physically contract. And if all these
> > > physical things were to physically occur, exactly as
> > > physically specified, you would get a physical reality in
> > > which the math of SR would perfectly work!
>
> [Hogbin]
> This would all be fine if the aether gave us some signs of its

> existence other than the effects it purports to explain, and if it

> gave us some indication of how these effects are brought about.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Total hog wash! The ether only needs to do what it needs to
> do to predict what SR predicts, and no more.

[Hogbin]
True, but you cannot then claim that it is physical and therefore
better.

[O'Barr]

> This is all it
> has to do to be superior!

[Hogbin]
Why superior?

>
>
> > > [O'Barr]
> > > > ... We have no
> > > > troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical
> > > > theory, and in SR, all you have is math. All you can say
> > > > is that the math causes all these funny things to happen,
> > > > you cannot even say how the math does it. You cannot say
> > > > and where the math exists, and when the math does it, and
> > > > how the math does it.
> > > > All you can say is just that it happens.
> > >
> > > [Hogbin wrote]
> > > As does the aether theory about clock slowing and rod
> > > shrinkage.
> > >
> > > O'Barr comments:
> > > By allowing 3-D space, with a real physical ether, we
> > > provide a material (physical) ether that can physically
> > > interact with physical clocks and physical rulers.
>
>

> > [Hogbin wrote]
> > I think this is where we started. In what sense in the
> > aether physical? It cannot be touched or bottled. It does
> > not consist of any known substance. It has no properties
> > that can be measured.
>
> > [O'Barr]
> > There is nothing in the ether theory that requires you to
> > be able to bottle it! Again, you violate every scientific
> > concept in requiring things that are not required by the
> > theory.

[Hogbin]
Nothing in the aether theory, but there is in your claim that the aether
is physical, if you mean this in the normal sense of the word. If you
do not mean it in this way then you must define exactly what you do
mean.

>
>
> [Hogbin]
> It is clear what occurs in so far as clocks are required to slow

> and rods to shrink; it has never been made clear how these
> effects come about.
>
> O'Barr comments:

> The light clock is a specific example of how at
> least one clock naturally results in slowing down in the ether,
> with the exact relationship required.

[Hogbin]
But why are all other clocks affected by the same amount? It seems an
unbelievable coincidence to me that all processes are affected by the
exact amount required to make any clock slow by exactly the same amount
when it moves through the aether.

Far better to say that time itself is involved.

[O'Barr]

> And it is not up to the
> ether people to support these assumptions of the theory to
> begin with.

[Hogbin]
Yes it is!

If any significant progress on this had been made since Lorentz's time
the theory would be more credible.

[O'Barr]

> Maybe you would like to do your job and show how
> it is impossible for the ether assumptions to be correct?

[Hogbin]
I freely admit that I cannot do this but I could make up a dozen bogus
theories that you could not disprove.

> [O'Barr]

> And even Lorentz, way back in his day, was able to explain
> that the shape of equal-potential fields, which certainly would
> be involved in determining the length of rulers made of up
> atoms using such potential fields, exactly conformed to the
> equations being used.

[Hogbin]
I am sure that Lorentz, after publishing his theory, was hoping that
other physicists would follow with more detailed explanations of the
presumed affects of the aether.

What actually happened was that Einstein came up with an alternative
theory that people liked better.

[Hogbin] . . .

> As I have explained above, if you are using 'physical' in its
> ordinary everyday sense, then the aether clearly is not
> physical as we cannot touch, feel, see, contain, measure, or
> detect it. If you mean something other than this then please
> tell me what it is.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But according to the theory, you do not have to touch it!

[Hogbin]
Agreed, not according to the theory, but what about your claim that it
is physical.

> [O'Barr]

>
> In accordance with the ether theory, every physical object
> that exists, every `ruler' and every `clock,' are physically
> affected by their motions through the ether, in direct,
> specified, physical ways. And every one of these physical ways
> are confirmed by experiment.

[Hogbin]
Of course they are. On this basis, give me any unexplained phenomenon
and I will explain it for you.

[O'Barr]]

> Therefore, the ether theory is
> complete, and meets all experimental requirements to be a
> scientific theory.

[Hogbin]
And indeed it is a scientific theory, I have never disputed that, but it
has no claim to be better than SR.

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00

In <394A6C62...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

>
> Martin Hogbin wrote: . . .
> I am pressing you for a definition of 'physical' as you use
> it as a justification for almost everything that you claim.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:

> Hog wash!!! Where is the word physical when I say that LET

O'Barr comments:
I do not need to `claim' it. Everyone knows it is physical!

[O'Barr, about the ether being a physical theory]

> This is all it has to do to be superior!

[Hogbin]
Why superior?

O'Barr comments:
For the multitude of reasons given: to include the ability
to physically explain, to allow the entry of physical causes,
to remove all paradoxes (real or apparent), to provide limits
to the math, to provide the simplest and doable physics, to
remove all the impossible concepts that are presented by SR
experts, to again establish logic and reason and common sense
to our concepts. There are no real end to this list. This is
the advantage of being correct. All things will support it.

>
> > > [O'Barr]
> > > > ... We have no
> > > > troubles at all in seeing how the ether is a physical
> > > > theory, and in SR, all you have is math. All you can
> > > > say is that the math causes all these funny things to
> > > > happen, you cannot even say how the math does it. You
> > > > cannot say and where the math exists, and when the math
> > > > does it, and how the math does it.
> > > > All you can say is just that it happens.
> > >
> > > [Hogbin wrote]
> > > As does the aether theory about clock slowing and rod
> > > shrinkage.
> > >
> > > O'Barr comments:
> > > By allowing 3-D space, with a real physical ether, we
> > > provide a material (physical) ether that can physically
> > > interact with physical clocks and physical rulers.

>
> > [Hogbin wrote]
> > I think this is where we started. In what sense in the
> > aether physical? It cannot be touched or bottled. It does
> > not consist of any known substance. It has no properties
> > that can be measured.
>
> > [O'Barr]
> > There is nothing in the ether theory that requires you to
> > be able to bottle it! Again, you violate every scientific
> > concept in requiring things that are not required by the
> > theory.

[Hogbin]
Nothing in the aether theory, but there is in your claim that
the aether is physical, if you mean this in the normal sense of
the word. If you do not mean it in this way then you must
define exactly what you do mean.

O'Barr comments:
As you have just acknowledged, we are not required to do this
by the theory, nor by any other scientific requirement that I
know. If you personally see a problem here, then be specific!

>
> [Hogbin]
> It is clear what occurs in so far as clocks are required to
> slow and rods to shrink; it has never been made clear how
> these effects come about.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> The light clock is a specific example of how at
> least one clock naturally results in slowing down in the
> ether, with the exact relationship required.

[Hogbin]
But why are all other clocks affected by the same amount? It
seems an unbelievable coincidence to me that all processes are
affected by the exact amount required to make any clock slow by
exactly the same amount when it moves through the aether.
Far better to say that time itself is involved.

O'Barr comments:
I guess we all have our problems? Why should there even be
time? Why do all clocks keep linear time? If it is geometry,
why would all clocks follow the same geometry? In fact, why
would any clock follow any man-made math at all? Don't you
think you have a few things backwards? To me, you are making
up a problem, which is really no different no matter what you
believe. For many things, they are just the way they are!

[O'Barr]
> And it is not up to the ether people to support
> these assumptions of the theory to begin with.

[Hogbin]
Yes it is!
If any significant progress on this had been made since
Lorentz's time the theory would be more credible.

O'Barr comments:
What a silly approach. To make something non-credible, all
we have to do is to do nothing!

[O'Barr]
> Maybe you would like to do your job and show how
> it is impossible for the ether assumptions to be correct?

[Hogbin]
I freely admit that I cannot do this but I could make up a
dozen bogus theories that you could not disprove.

O'Barr comments:
And SR is so ingrained into your mind that you can sit here
and lie! You are just like your FAQ! LET is not bogus. It is
the most substantiated theory that has ever existed! And thus
it is scientifically worth while to consider its defeat, or its
support, by every decent scientist! And it certainly cannot
be ignored, as it is done in the SR FAQ.

> [O'Barr]
> And even Lorentz, way back in his day, was able to explain
> that the shape of equal-potential fields, which certainly
> would be involved in determining the length of rulers made of
> up atoms using such potential fields, exactly conformed to
> the equations being used.

[Hogbin]
I am sure that Lorentz, after publishing his theory, was hoping
that other physicists would follow with more detailed
explanations of the presumed affects of the aether.
What actually happened was that Einstein came up with an
alternative theory that people liked better.

O'Barr comments:
I am glad that you worded this correctly. It was not a
scientific choice! And the SR FAQ does not point this out.
Therefore, it is dishonest, as a scientific FAQ! The `choice'
for SR involved some very interesting events, and the day will
come when a study will be made as to why and how such a choice
was made, and why it was done the way it was done. It is a
most funny thing. And it points out how difficult it is to be
honest even with the best of intentions.

[Hogbin] . . .
> As I have explained above, if you are using 'physical' in
> its ordinary everyday sense, then the aether clearly is not
> physical as we cannot touch, feel, see, contain, measure, or
> detect it. If you mean something other than this then please
> tell me what it is.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But according to the theory, you do not have to touch it!

[Hogbin]
Agreed, not according to the theory, but what about your claim
that it is physical.

O'Barr comments: Just keep reading. What follows tells you
exactly how it is physical:

> [O'Barr]
> In accordance with the ether theory, every physical object
> that exists, every `ruler' and every `clock,' are physically
> affected by their motions through the ether, in direct,
> specified, physical ways. And every one of these physical
> ways are confirmed by experiment.

[Hogbin]
Of course they are. On this basis, give me any unexplained
phenomenon and I will explain it for you.

O'Barr comments:
The ether tells us exactly how everything we see physically
occurs. It does this for every single object. It does this
with full consistency, and exactness. I would like for you to
tell us how SR physically does this. And I would expect you to
tell us just as physically and specifically and exactly as the
ether, for every object that exists! Thanks!

[O'Barr]]
> Therefore, the ether theory is complete, and meets
> all experimental requirements to be a scientific theory.

[Hogbin]
And indeed it is a scientific theory, I have never disputed
that, but it has no claim to be better than SR.

O'Barr comments:
Then you are a prejudiced person! In almost every post I
have listed reasons why the ether is superior. Not at any time
have you offered arguments against all these reasons. How
could you argue against the ether's ability to give us a reason
why c is a constant? SR has no reasons what-so-ever!!!!
How could you argue against the ether's ability to give us
the capacity of measuring things faster than c, even infinity?
How could you argue against the ether's ability to give us
the capacity of removing back-in-time concepts.
In almost all ways, the ether is now superior, and you sit
here and say there are no claims? No claims at all???? Out of
all of these statements, you cannot see one???? Not even
one??? Even in your own answers you mentioned one!!!! You are
long gone as a scientific person! You are prejudiced. And so
are all the other SR experts on this net! It is not good to be
on this net at this time. You are all going to be laughed at
because of your own prejudices! Do you ever go back, after a
serious of posts, and re-read what you did??? Do you not know
how funny some of you are???? This is no scientific net!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

> [Hogbin]

> > Can you explain to me what you mean by realism.
>

> See gr-qc/0001101 for details. But essentially we can use also the
> EPR criterion of reality: 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.

[Hogbin]
OK. I understand what you mean.

> [Hogbin]

> > GET+BM sounds interesting, you could call it a hidden universe
> > theory. Do you think that some aspects of the aether (Universe) are
> > in principle hidden forever or do you think that some day we will be
> > able to know everything?
>
> I'm not sure.

[Hogbin]
You are rather hedging your bets.

If you think that there are variables that are in principle forever hidden from our
knowledge then you lose realism, as you define it.

If you think that this is not the case the you should be looking to see under what
possible circumstances we might gain access to this hidden information.

>
> +++++++++++++++++++

> > Are you saying that GET explains why all forms of timekeeping device, whatever
> > their mechanism, are slowed by exactly the same amount by motion through the
> > aether?
>
> Yep.
>
> > If so can you explain how.
>
> In GET we have four conservation laws, as for usual matter. These
> equations do not depend on material properties. The material
> properties are the fields we observe (gauge fields and fermions).
> Observing them we do not observe if the conservation laws hold or not.
> If we omit these four equations, we obtain the solution only modulo
> four unknown functions - the freedom of choice equivalent to GR diff
> covariance.
>

> > It is interesting that the aether is described by classical
> > condensed matter theory, in other words it is good old 'stuff'. Yet
> > it conspires to remain hidden. In what sense does the aether
> > actually exist?
>
> In the very real sense. If the theory is true, the ether exists,
> moreover, everything is part of it. The conspiracy is explained by
> the conspiracy that all other fields are material properties of the
> ether. This gives them common properties - no momentum exchange terms
> with the ether. Non-ether types of matter would have such terms and
> therefore interact with the ether in another way, breaking the EEP.
>

[MH]
Are you saying aether is real but undetectable (except for the effects of
relativity).

>
> > I was thinking of the gravity wave experiments in particular. If
> > your theory predicted different results from GR and those result
> > were obtained from experiment you would be in a much stronger
> > position.
>
> Yep, but my current guess is that there are no differences for waves.
> (Not that I'm very sure about this.)
>

[Hogbin]
I would have thought that this would have been an area in which you could refine
your theory to make some definite predictions.

>
> >>> Does yout theory use Euclidean space and time?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > How then does movement through space affect time?
>
> See the equations.

[Hogbin]
In other words you postulate some new equations which make this so. I am sure that
the earlier aether theorists hoped that the aether and its effects could be
explained using existing physics theories. If that could be done it would give
aether theories a distinct advantage over relativity.

>
>
> Would concrete proof of the
> > existence of a black hole disprove GET?
>
> Not what is today considered to be a BH proof in GR context. That
> means simply the existence of a massive body with small enough radius
> so that GR requires a black hole to describe this. Possibly some
> agreement with GR predictions in some environment. But this agreement
> can be obtained by a sufficiently small parameter Upsilon of my
> theory.
>

[Hogbin]
Your extra parameter(s) are a disadvantage of your theory in that they make it
harder for it to make falsifiable predictions. You are hedging your bets again.

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00

Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>>> How can an observer know that he is moving with respect to the Ether
>>> in LET ?
>>
>> For example, this may follow from his assumptions about the global
>> universe. He prefers (for simplicity) the idea that the global
>> universe is homogeneous, and therefore the frame of background
>> radiation is the preferred one.
>
> This is not a frame Lorentz Ether Theory can deal with. You must
> use a higher level theory. GET for example.

For example. But it is not unreasonable for the LET proponent to
prefer the average rest frame of galaxies. And the more important
argument is of course that it does not matter if he knows or not.

>> Read Newton, who makes an explicit difference between absolute time
>> and measurable time. For obvious metaphysical reasons:
>>
>> "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own
>> nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by
>> other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is
>> some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether
>> accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as
>> an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable
>> motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be
>> accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable
>> to no change."
>>
>> It is clear that causality is related with true time, not with measure
>> of duration by motion.
>
> This paragraph is meaningless without a clear definition of the
> word "accurately".

No, it is perfectly meaningful. It is a perfectly reasonable
possibility that absolute time is not accurately measurable.

> What is the lower bound of the difference between absolute and
> measured times ? Can the reading of our clocks be as close as we
> want to absolute time ?

That's an interesting research question. The statement clarifies that
a priori the answer is unknown and for the foundations of the theory
unimportant.

> Since every dynamical equation in Newtonian mechanics makes use of
> absolute time and since one must at some point introduce measured
> times to compare theory and experiment, this lower bound had better
> to be very close to zero if one wants Newtonian mechanics to have
> any predictive power.

No. A theory can have sufficient predictive power even if there would
be no time measurement at all. For example, that the planet orbits
are ellipses with the Sun in one focus does not refer to time
measurement at all.

> Then to define causality with true time or with measured time is
> equivalent within experimental accuracies. The situation is
> completely different in LET because there are now systematic effects
> which are completely unavoidable and easily measurable with our best
> current clocks.

Who cares? There are enough predictions of LET - as much as of SR.
(EPR/Bell omitted here)

>>> With the classical notion of causality used by every physicist
>>> since at least Galileo it is possible, at least theoretically, to
>>> know whether X occurs before Y or whether Y occurs before X. With
>>> your definition there is no way to answer such a question within
>>> LET if X and Y are separated by spacelike intervals.

>> As I have shown with Newtons definition, you are wrong about this.

> When I said theoretically I meant with ideal clocks. In LET there
> is no unambiguous way to tell which event occurs before the other.

And in the foundations of Newtons theory the existence of ideal clocks
does not play any role.

> You implicitly admitted that above by picking a particular one, the
> one in which the CMBR has a zero dipole.

Nothing to admit there. If we have no absolute clocks, so what?

>> Without realism causality becomes an empty shell.

> From a metaphysical point of view this could be debatable but I am
> not interested in this kind of questions. However Quantum Mechanics
> proves that realism is not necessary to construct models in physics.

Nothing to prove. Solipcism was always a logical possibility.

> On the contrary the concept of causality as it is used in Einstein's
> theories has proved to be fundamental since quantum field theories
> rely heavily on it for their definition (cf. Weinberg's book "The
> quantum theory of fields for example, chapter 3) and it is one key
> ingredient of the demonstration of spin-statistic theorem for
> example.

Ok, a purely correlational definition of causality remains to be
meaningful, non-empty, but is weaker than realistic causality
(violations of Bell's inequality do not falsify it).

>> And, of course, nobody forbids you to restrict yourself to
>> observable effects. But to formalize a theory based on observation
>> is simply the positivistic fallacy.

> Quantum mechanics is the one proof that shows that a form of
> Positivism can be successful. It has really been a driving force in
> the construction of this theory. Heisenberg's formulation is
> inspired by positivist ideas.

The famous Einstein quote "it is the theory which defines what is
observable" which has inspired Heisenberg is certainly
non-positivistic.

> He even invented quantum field theories by continuing to walk on the
> path he opened with his mechanics of matrices which is almost the
> prototype of a positivist theory, a path which lead him to the
> quantization of the electromagnetic field.

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is certainly not positivistic -
derived from observation.

> Anyway you did not really answer my criticisms. Your concept of
> reality is very elastic. You accept for example that it is ruled by
> Bohmian mechanics which is tailored such as to reproduce
> probabilistic behaviours which have nothing to do with what is seen
> in classical stochastic systems. As Ether is not detectable in LET,
> this reality is definitively hidden in Bohmian mechanics, in both
> case not because of the limitation of our experimental tools but
> because of the way these theories are constructed.

Because of the way theory-internal measurements are restricted in
these theories.

> I do not see any value in this kind of metaphysical manipulations
> and/or reinterpretations.

LET is an approximation of GET. GET is an approximation of something
else, like an atomic ether theory. BM looks also like an
approximation of something else. Starting with SR/GR, we will not
find atomic ether. Starting with LET, we have a chance. Starting
with the correct guess, we have a much better chance to find the
correct theory. Even if we are unable to prove it by observation.

> I do only care for concepts which have a genuine predictive power.

Above competitors (LET/SR, QM/BM) have mainly the same predictive
power. The minor differences are now (after violation of BI) in
favour of realism.

In general, the predictive power of hidden variable theories is
usually not lower, but greater than of positivistic theories. That's
because all solutions of the hidden variable theory are solutions of
the positivistic theory too (that means if the h.v.t. is true, the
pos. t. cannot be falsified) but some solutions of the pos. t. may not
allow correspondent hidden variables, thus, their observation
falsifies the h.v.t. but not the pos. t.

It seems you are trying to move competition into a metaphysical field,
replacing the clear concept of predictive power, which counts real
predictions, into a metaphysical domain of "genuine predictive power"
with different criteria.

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
>>> GET+BM sounds interesting, you could call it a hidden universe
>>> theory. Do you think that some aspects of the aether (Universe) are
>>> in principle hidden forever or do you think that some day we will be
>>> able to know everything?
>>
>> I'm not sure.

> [Hogbin] You are rather hedging your bets. If you think that there

> are variables that are in principle forever hidden from our
> knowledge then you lose realism, as you define it.

No, realism as I define it is about existence, different from
observability.

>> In the very real sense. If the theory is true, the ether exists,
>> moreover, everything is part of it. The conspiracy is explained by
>> the conspiracy that all other fields are material properties of the
>> ether. This gives them common properties - no momentum exchange terms
>> with the ether. Non-ether types of matter would have such terms and
>> therefore interact with the ether in another way, breaking the EEP.

> [MH] Are you saying aether is real but undetectable (except for the
> effects of relativity).

All we detect is ether. Only some really different situations we
cannot distinguish by observation. I would not name this very partial
unobservability an "unobervable ether".

>> Yep, but my current guess is that there are no differences for
>> waves. (Not that I'm very sure about this.)

> [Hogbin] I would have thought that this would have been an area in

> which you could refine your theory to make some definite
> predictions.

I do not expect any differences in this domain (gravitational waves)
from GR, therefore I'm not looking there.

>>> How then does movement through space affect time?
>>
>> See the equations.

> [Hogbin] In other words you postulate some new equations which make

> this so. I am sure that the earlier aether theorists hoped that the
> aether and its effects could be explained using existing physics
> theories. If that could be done it would give aether theories a
> distinct advantage over relativity.

Note that the equations I propose are well known in condensed matter
theory - they are known as conservation laws.

>>> Would concrete proof of the existence of a black hole disprove
>>> GET?

>> Not what is today considered to be a BH proof in GR context. That
>> means simply the existence of a massive body with small enough
>> radius so that GR requires a black hole to describe this. Possibly
>> some agreement with GR predictions in some environment. But this
>> agreement can be obtained by a sufficiently small parameter Upsilon
>> of my theory.

> [Hogbin] Your extra parameter(s) are a disadvantage of your theory

> in that they make it harder for it to make falsifiable predictions.

Yep. But they have effects which allow to omit inflation theory. The
most serious problems solved by inflation theory (flatness,
cosmological horizon problem) do not exist in GET.

One parameter allows to forget inflation theory, the other allows to
explain some part of the dark matter. Not what I would name a
disadvantage.

Luc Bourhis

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

>> What is the lower bound of the difference between absolute and
>> measured times ? Can the reading of our clocks be as close as we
>> want to absolute time ?
>
> That's an interesting research question. The statement clarifies that
> a priori the answer is unknown and for the foundations of the theory
> unimportant.

This is on the contrary very important because physics is an
experimental science.

>> Since every dynamical equation in Newtonian mechanics makes use of
>> absolute time and since one must at some point introduce measured
>> times to compare theory and experiment, this lower bound had better
>> to be very close to zero if one wants Newtonian mechanics to have
>> any predictive power.
>
> No. A theory can have sufficient predictive power even if there would
> be no time measurement at all. For example, that the planet orbits
> are ellipses with the Sun in one focus does not refer to time
> measurement at all.

You are right about your example but it is just a mere rhetorical
argument. There are tons of situations in which one needs to equate
the Newtonian absolute time with a measured time. I will not insult
your intelligence by giving examples. Then one must postulate
implicitly that this operation will induce uncertainties smaller
than the experimental error bars. Since it is perfectly legitimate
to consider the limit where these errors are as small as we want
ideal clocks which give this absolute time are implicitly a part of
Newtonian mechanics.

>> Then to define causality with true time or with measured time is
>> equivalent within experimental accuracies. The situation is
>> completely different in LET because there are now systematic effects
>> which are completely unavoidable and easily measurable with our best
>> current clocks.
>
> Who cares? There are enough predictions of LET - as much as of SR.
> (EPR/Bell omitted here)

In LET there is no way to measure the Newtonian absolute time even
with ideal clocks. This is a very important change one has to take
into account when speaking about causality.

> And in the foundations of Newtons theory the existence of ideal clocks
> does not play any role.

But they are fundamental as soon as one wants to apply Newtonian
mechanics to predict how an observable depends on time. Again
physics would be meaningless without its experimental side.

>> You implicitly admitted that above by picking a particular one, the
>> one in which the CMBR has a zero dipole.
>
> Nothing to admit there. If we have no absolute clocks, so what?

I could also use the frame attached to my living room to define the
time ordering of events. You chose the "CMBR frame" only because it
looks like less arbitrary.

>>> Without realism causality becomes an empty shell.
>
>> From a metaphysical point of view this could be debatable but I am
>> not interested in this kind of questions. However Quantum Mechanics
>> proves that realism is not necessary to construct models in physics.
>

> Nothing to prove. Solipsism was always a logical possibility.

Why is this a solipsism ?

>> On the contrary the concept of causality as it is used in Einstein's
>> theories has proved to be fundamental since quantum field theories
>> rely heavily on it for their definition (cf. Weinberg's book "The
>> quantum theory of fields for example, chapter 3) and it is one key
>> ingredient of the demonstration of spin-statistic theorem for
>> example.
>
> Ok, a purely correlational definition of causality remains to be
> meaningful, non-empty, but is weaker than realistic causality
> (violations of Bell's inequality do not falsify it).

And in quantum mechanics Bell's inequalities are not an issue at
all. But let's go back to my above points. How do you justify that
[f(x),g(y)] = 0 for Bosonic fields if (x-y)^2 < 0 and the same
relation with an anticommutator for Fermionic fields without the
concept of causality used in SR ?

> The famous Einstein quote "it is the theory which defines what is
> observable" which has inspired Heisenberg is certainly
> non-positivistic.

Heisenberg opened his 1925 paper about his mechanics of matrices
with <<The present paper seeks to establish a basis for theoretical
quantum mechanics founded exclusively upon relationships between
quantities that in principle are measurable>>. This is undoubtedly
a form of positivism. The idea of the S matrix is yet another
example of the importance of such an approach in the formalisation
of quantum mechanics.

> Heisenberg uncertainty principle is certainly not positivistic -
> derived from observation.

It is not a principle but a theorem in quantum mechanics as it was
defined by Heisenberg.

>> Anyway you did not really answer my criticisms. Your concept of
>> reality is very elastic. You accept for example that it is ruled by
>> Bohmian mechanics which is tailored such as to reproduce
>> probabilistic behaviours which have nothing to do with what is seen
>> in classical stochastic systems. As Ether is not detectable in LET,
>> this reality is definitively hidden in Bohmian mechanics, in both
>> case not because of the limitation of our experimental tools but
>> because of the way these theories are constructed.
>
> Because of the way theory-internal measurements are restricted in
> these theories.
>
>> I do not see any value in this kind of metaphysical manipulations
>> and/or reinterpretations.
>
> LET is an approximation of GET.

Obvious.

> GET is an approximation of something else, like an atomic ether
> theory.

But you do not know if you can find an atomic ether theory
compatible with the Standard Model.

> BM looks also like an approximation of something else.

Like what ?

> Starting with SR/GR, we will not find atomic ether. Starting
> with LET, we have a chance. Starting with the correct guess, we
> have a much better chance to find the correct theory. Even if
> we are unable to prove it by observation.

Why should an atomic ether theory be the correct theory ? You have
just exposed your metaphysical prejudices.

>> I do only care for concepts which have a genuine predictive power.
>
> Above competitors (LET/SR, QM/BM) have mainly the same predictive
> power. The minor differences are now (after violation of BI) in
> favour of realism.

> In general, the predictive power of hidden variable theories is
> usually not lower, but greater than of positivistic theories. That's
> because all solutions of the hidden variable theory are solutions of
> the positivistic theory too (that means if the h.v.t. is true, the
> pos. t. cannot be falsified) but some solutions of the pos. t. may not
> allow correspondent hidden variables, thus, their observation
> falsifies the h.v.t. but not the pos. t.

But with LET and Bohmian mechanics the hidden variable theory and
the positivistic ones are equivalent _by construction_. There is no
way to distinguish them. At least this is what is usually claimed:
since I did never study Bohmian mechanics in details I do not know
whether it is true for the equivalent of quantum field theories.
Anyway it is SR definition of causality which helped physicists
finding the commutation and anticommutation rules I mentioned above
and no hidden variables theory. Until now no such theory has proven
that it can be a source of progresses. It is therefore no wonder
that we keep using the approach which has been successful for one
century. New paradigms have to prove they are worth learning them.

> It seems you are trying to move competition into a metaphysical field,
> replacing the clear concept of predictive power, which counts real
> predictions, into a metaphysical domain of "genuine predictive power"
> with different criteria.

Yes I stated very loosely what I had in mind. I thought about a
source of inspirations or a kind of guide. The geometrical concepts
of SR and GR are very good examples.

--
Luc Bourhis

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>>> What is the lower bound of the difference between absolute and
>>> measured times ? Can the reading of our clocks be as close as we
>>> want to absolute time ?
>>
>> That's an interesting research question. The statement clarifies that
>> a priori the answer is unknown and for the foundations of the theory
>> unimportant.
>
> This is on the contrary very important because physics is an
> experimental science.

It is not a foundational question, physics is natural science.

It is important for experimental physics, no doubt.

>> No. A theory can have sufficient predictive power even if there would
>> be no time measurement at all. For example, that the planet orbits
>> are ellipses with the Sun in one focus does not refer to time
>> measurement at all.
>
> You are right about your example but it is just a mere rhetorical
> argument. There are tons of situations in which one needs to equate
> the Newtonian absolute time with a measured time. I will not insult
> your intelligence by giving examples. Then one must postulate
> implicitly that this operation will induce uncertainties smaller
> than the experimental error bars.

No, you mingle here the particular situation in NM where we have
this property and can use it with the conceptual situation.

And the conceptual situation is the following. We have some reality
described by some parameters, say, lambda in Lambda, which is some
complex functional space. In the case of NM, it contains a description
of reality in absolute time. Then we have some measurements. The
theory defines what can be measured, by defining a function/functional
on Lambda. In the Newtonian case we have "measured time = absolute
time".

Now, in a state of reality lambda this allows to make unique
predictions about the observables in this state, and to predict
relations between them. And there is no necessity that the set of all
observables allows to compute lambda uniquely.

> Since it is perfectly legitimate to consider the limit where these
> errors are as small as we want ideal clocks which give this absolute
> time are implicitly a part of Newtonian mechanics.

Nonetheless, ideal clocks are not necessarily related with absolute
time. It is another concept.

>> Who cares? There are enough predictions of LET - as much as of SR.
>> (EPR/Bell omitted here)
>
> In LET there is no way to measure the Newtonian absolute time even
> with ideal clocks.

I know, but who cares?

> This is a very important change one has to take into account when
> speaking about causality.

Empty argument. Of course, the properties of the theory have to be
taken into account if we want to make predictions.

>> And in the foundations of Newtons theory the existence of ideal
>> clocks does not play any role.

> But they are fundamental as soon as one wants to apply Newtonian
> mechanics to predict how an observable depends on time.

No. Fundamental NM predicts how observables depend on absolute time.
Ideal clocks are one example of observables, thus, NM predicts how
ideal clocks depend on absolute time, that means, predicts a function
T(t,physical situation). In our particular example of NM T(t,physical
situation) = t.

> Again physics would be meaningless without its experimental side.

The experimental side would be as well if the function would be not so
trivial. We would have nonetheless a prediction for T and all other
observables, and we can compare it with observation.

>>> You implicitly admitted that above by picking a particular one, the
>>> one in which the CMBR has a zero dipole.
>>
>> Nothing to admit there. If we have no absolute clocks, so what?
>
> I could also use the frame attached to my living room to define the
> time ordering of events. You chose the "CMBR frame" only because it
> looks like less arbitrary.

Indeed. Occam's razor. What's the problem?

>>> However Quantum Mechanics proves that realism is not necessary to
>>> construct models in physics.

>> Nothing to prove. Solipsism was always a logical possibility.

> Why is this a solipsism ?

Misunderstanding. QM was not necessary to prove that realism is not
necessary to construct models in physics, because this was already
proven by solipsism long before.

> But let's go back to my above points. How do you justify that
> [f(x),g(y)] = 0 for Bosonic fields if (x-y)^2 < 0 and the same
> relation with an anticommutator for Fermionic fields without the
> concept of causality used in SR ?

I use the concept of causality in LET which also forbids correlations
which may be applied to transfer information.

>> The famous Einstein quote "it is the theory which defines what is
>> observable" which has inspired Heisenberg is certainly
>> non-positivistic.

> Heisenberg opened his 1925 paper about his mechanics of matrices
> with <<The present paper seeks to establish a basis for theoretical
> quantum mechanics founded exclusively upon relationships between
> quantities that in principle are measurable>> . This is undoubtedly
> a form of positivism.

No, it is a property of the theory. I do not doubt that Heisenberg
was highly influenced by positivistic nonsense. Schroedinger was much
more realist, and has found QM too.

> The idea of the S matrix is yet another example of the importance of
> such an approach in the formalisation of quantum mechanics.

It is always useful and important to have a clear understanding what
can be measured and what cannot be measured. That's the rational
hidden behind the positivistic nonsense.

>> Heisenberg uncertainty principle is certainly not positivistic -
>> derived from observation.
>
> It is not a principle but a theorem in quantum mechanics as it was
> defined by Heisenberg.

Yep. As it should be in non-positivistic science.

>>> I do not see any value in this kind of metaphysical manipulations
>>> and/or reinterpretations.

>> GET is an approximation of something else, like an atomic ether
>> theory.

> But you do not know if you can find an atomic ether theory
> compatible with the Standard Model.

But I would not develop GET if I would believe that this is
impossible. In this sense, the reinterpretation is a type of research
program. Starting from LET we try to find something like GET,
starting with SR something like GR. Initially there was no
difference, GR and GET are already different, and the difference
between SR and LET in the issue of Bell's inequality has not been
observed 1905.

>> BM looks also like an approximation of something else.

> Like what ?

That's completely open. But the research direction is certainly
different if I start with BM, in comparison with QM.

>> Starting with SR/GR, we will not find atomic ether. Starting
>> with LET, we have a chance. Starting with the correct guess, we
>> have a much better chance to find the correct theory. Even if
>> we are unable to prove it by observation.

> Why should an atomic ether theory be the correct theory ?

Why not? Who knows this 1905, comparing LET and SR?

> You have just exposed your metaphysical prejudices.

No, I think it is useful to find as much reasonable competitors as
available. Different schools starting with different metaphysical
interpretations will tend to develop different theories. More
competition gives a better chance for success.

>> In general, the predictive power of hidden variable theories is
>> usually not lower, but greater than of positivistic theories. That's
>> because all solutions of the hidden variable theory are solutions of
>> the positivistic theory too (that means if the h.v.t. is true, the
>> pos. t. cannot be falsified) but some solutions of the pos. t. may not
>> allow correspondent hidden variables, thus, their observation
>> falsifies the h.v.t. but not the pos. t.
>
> But with LET and Bohmian mechanics the hidden variable theory and
> the positivistic ones are equivalent _by construction_.

As we have seen for Bell's inequality not. But this is not really the
issue. If the empirical content is the same, no theory is better than
the other from point of view of Popper's criterion.

> Anyway it is SR definition of causality which helped physicists
> finding the commutation and anticommutation rules I mentioned above
> and no hidden variables theory.

Because it was the general paradigm. There is no evidence that it
would be harder to find them with the ether paradigm.

> Until now no such theory has proven that it can be a source of
> progresses.

The development of the complete set of SR formulas before 1905 was
certainly a progress. And that paradigms which are rejected will not
be used to describe unrelated progress is obvious.

> New paradigms have to prove they are worth learning them.

The situation with Bell's inequality, conservation laws, the problem
of time and the information loss problem is sufficient proof that
it is worth learning.

>> It seems you are trying to move competition into a metaphysical field,
>> replacing the clear concept of predictive power, which counts real
>> predictions, into a metaphysical domain of "genuine predictive power"
>> with different criteria.

> Yes I stated very loosely what I had in mind. I thought about a
> source of inspirations or a kind of guide. The geometrical concepts
> of SR and GR are very good examples.

Some type of inspiratory power?

Note that the geometrical concepts are in no contradiction with the
ether concept.

Luc Bourhis

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

> Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>>>> What is the lower bound of the difference between absolute and
>>>> measured times ? Can the reading of our clocks be as close as we
>>>> want to absolute time ?
>>>
>>> That's an interesting research question. The statement clarifies that
>>> a priori the answer is unknown and for the foundations of the theory
>>> unimportant.
>>
>> This is on the contrary very important because physics is an
>> experimental science.
>
> It is not a foundational question, physics is natural science.
>
> It is important for experimental physics, no doubt.

Very strange opinion. You wrote similar statements in a recent
discussion with Matthew Nobes and he also was surprised and
disagreed with your sharp distinction between theory and
experiment.

> And the conceptual situation is the following. We have some reality
> described by some parameters, say, lambda in Lambda, which is some
> complex functional space. In the case of NM, it contains a description
> of reality in absolute time. Then we have some measurements. The
> theory defines what can be measured, by defining a function/functional
> on Lambda. In the Newtonian case we have "measured time = absolute
> time".
>
> Now, in a state of reality lambda this allows to make unique
> predictions about the observables in this state, and to predict
> relations between them. And there is no necessity that the set of all
> observables allows to compute lambda uniquely.

It is wise to choose a fundamental theory which make this
functional as simple as possible. Newtonian mechanics is simple if
these equations are Galilean invariant because then equating
absolute time with local time measured with ideal clocks gives a
functional equal to the identity. On the contrary if the dynamical
equations are Lorentz invariant to use a Galilean spacetime will
result in a overcomplicated functional.

>> But let's go back to my above points. How do you justify that
>> [f(x),g(y)] = 0 for Bosonic fields if (x-y)^2 < 0 and the same
>> relation with an anticommutator for Fermionic fields without the
>> concept of causality used in SR ?
>
> I use the concept of causality in LET which also forbids correlations
> which may be applied to transfer information.

So relativistic causality is enforced when it can have consequences
on causal correlation but "absolute causality" is used when one
needs to save realism from experimental contradictions. That seems
more complicated than the universal use of the same notion of
causality.

>> Heisenberg opened his 1925 paper about his mechanics of matrices
>> with <<The present paper seeks to establish a basis for theoretical
>> quantum mechanics founded exclusively upon relationships between
>> quantities that in principle are measurable>> . This is undoubtedly
>> a form of positivism.
>
> No, it is a property of the theory. I do not doubt that Heisenberg
> was highly influenced by positivistic nonsense.

There are different degrees of positivism. The strongest one are
indeed useless and no modern theory follows that metaphysics. But
Quantum Mechanics shows that a more reasonable version of
positivism can be useful in physics.

> Schrödinger was much more realist, and has found QM too.

The influence of Schrödinger on the development of Quantum
Mechanics was marginal. Heisenberg had the equivalent of
Schrödinger equation in a different and in fact more useful form.
Did you ever try to solve the harmonic oscillator or the hydrogen
atom with only Schrödinger's equation ? It is much easier with the
algebraic formalism of Heisenberg. The equation written by
Schrödinger is just H Psi = i dPsi/dt written in the X
representation.

>> But you do not know if you can find an atomic ether theory
>> compatible with the Standard Model.
>
> But I would not develop GET if I would believe that this is
> impossible. In this sense, the reinterpretation is a type of research
> program. Starting from LET we try to find something like GET,
> starting with SR something like GR. Initially there was no
> difference, GR and GET are already different, and the difference
> between SR and LET in the issue of Bell's inequality has not been
> observed 1905.

At least GET and GR could be discriminated experimentally. Not in a
close future but theoretically it is possible. However your
argument about SR, LET and Bell's inequality is just metaphysical
since it does not lead to any kind of experimental test. In fact
realism is not even required to make GET a valid physical theory.

>>> BM looks also like an approximation of something else.
>
>> Like what ?
>
> That's completely open. But the research direction is certainly
> different if I start with BM, in comparison with QM.

>> Why should an atomic ether theory be the correct theory ?
>
> Why not? Who knows this 1905, comparing LET and SR?

Since Maxwell physicists had struggle for decades without even
approaching a mechanistic models of electrodynamics. The leading
experts in this domain at the beginning of this century, Larmor,
Lorentz, Poincaré, ... stopped searching in fact. Without a
microscopic model the contraction of matter postulated by Lorentz
seemed simply too complicated compared to Einstein's theory.

>> You have just exposed your metaphysical prejudices.
>
> No, I think it is useful to find as much reasonable competitors as
> available. Different schools starting with different metaphysical
> interpretations will tend to develop different theories. More
> competition gives a better chance for success.

But again GET can be imagined without enforcing realism.

>> But with LET and Bohmian mechanics the hidden variable theory and
>> the positivistic ones are equivalent _by construction_.
>
> As we have seen for Bell's inequality not. But this is not really the
> issue. If the empirical content is the same, no theory is better than
> the other from point of view of Popper's criterion.

That's my point above.

>> New paradigms have to prove they are worth learning them.
>
> The situation with Bell's inequality, conservation laws, the problem
> of time and the information loss problem is sufficient proof that
> it is worth learning.

I am not convinced. Again you focus on GR as if it was the only
opponent of GET. But there are also superstrings theory and the
recent M-theory which address also the quantization of gravity. But
contrary to GET they start to give testable predictions in
forthcoming particle accelerators as LHC or NLC. These theories are
not based on Newtonian ideas at all. On the contrary they reuse the
idea of spacetime manifolds with non-trivial topologies.

>> Yes I stated very loosely what I had in mind. I thought about a
>> source of inspirations or a kind of guide. The geometrical concepts
>> of SR and GR are very good examples.
>
> Some type of inspiratory power?

Yes.

> Note that the geometrical concepts are in no contradiction with the
> ether concept.

Not necessarily.

--
Luc Bourhis

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

[Hogbin]
Why did you not tell me this before? If 'everyone knows' the aether is
physical that is that then. No more argument.

> O'Barr comments:
> ... For many things, they are just the way they are!

[Hogbin]
Fine, but then you cannot claim to have explained them.

>
>
> [O'Barr]
> > And it is not up to the ether people to support
> > these assumptions of the theory to begin with.
>
> [Hogbin]
> Yes it is!
> If any significant progress on this had been made since
> Lorentz's time the theory would be more credible.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> What a silly approach. To make something non-credible, all
> we have to do is to do nothing!
>
> [O'Barr]
> > Maybe you would like to do your job and show how
> > it is impossible for the ether assumptions to be correct?
>
> [Hogbin]
> I freely admit that I cannot do this but I could make up a
> dozen bogus theories that you could not disprove.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And SR is so ingrained into your mind that you can sit here
> and lie! You are just like your FAQ! LET is not bogus.

[Hogbin]
I did not say that it was. The point that I was making was that just
because a theory cannot be disproved that does not mean that it is not
bogus.

>
> > [O'Barr]
> > And even Lorentz, way back in his day, was able to explain
> > that the shape of equal-potential fields, which certainly
> > would be involved in determining the length of rulers made of
> > up atoms using such potential fields, exactly conformed to
> > the equations being used.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I am sure that Lorentz, after publishing his theory, was hoping
> that other physicists would follow with more detailed
> explanations of the presumed affects of the aether.
> What actually happened was that Einstein came up with an
> alternative theory that people liked better.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I am glad that you worded this correctly. It was not a
> scientific choice!

[Hogbin]
I agree that it was not based on experimental evidence; LET was not
experimentally proved wrong.

[O'Barr]

> And the SR FAQ does not point this out.
> Therefore, it is dishonest, as a scientific FAQ! The `choice'
> for SR involved some very interesting events, and the day will
> come when a study will be made as to why and how such a choice
> was made, and why it was done the way it was done. It is a
> most funny thing. And it points out how difficult it is to be
> honest even with the best of intentions.

[Hogbin]
As many others must have pointed out to you, it is possible to construct
a whole lot of theories that are consistent with experiment. It is
obviously impractical and pointless to list them all in a FAQ especially
as only one theory is used and taught throughout the world everyday.

>
> --------------------------

> [Hogbin] . . .
> > As I have explained above, if you are using 'physical' in
> > its ordinary everyday sense, then the aether clearly is not
> > physical as we cannot touch, feel, see, contain, measure, or
> > detect it. If you mean something other than this then please
> > tell me what it is.
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > But according to the theory, you do not have to touch it!
>
> [Hogbin]
> Agreed, not according to the theory, but what about your claim
> that it is physical.
>
> O'Barr comments: Just keep reading. What follows tells you
> exactly how it is physical:

[Hogbin]
You keep claiming this but you you have never done it.

>
>
> > [O'Barr]
> > In accordance with the ether theory, every physical object
> > that exists, every `ruler' and every `clock,' are physically
> > affected by their motions through the ether, in direct,
> > specified, physical ways. And every one of these physical
> > ways are confirmed by experiment.
>
> [Hogbin]
> Of course they are. On this basis, give me any unexplained
> phenomenon and I will explain it for you.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> The ether tells us exactly how everything we see physically
> occurs. It does this for every single object. It does this
> with full consistency, and exactness. I would like for you to
> tell us how SR physically does this

[Hogbin]
I can tell you how SR does these things but whether this is a 'physical'
explanation depends on what you mean by that word. For SR, as with LET,
every actual experiment that you can do confirms the theory.

> [O'Barr]]
> > Therefore, the ether theory is complete, and meets
> > all experimental requirements to be a scientific theory.
>
> [Hogbin]
> And indeed it is a scientific theory, I have never disputed
> that, but it has no claim to be better than SR.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Then you are a prejudiced person! In almost every post I
> have listed reasons why the ether is superior. Not at any time
> have you offered arguments against all these reasons.

[Hogbin]
I started out with a comparison of the two theories which you found very
fair.

[O'Barr]

> How
> could you argue against the ether's ability to give us a reason
> why c is a constant?

[Hogbin]
What is this reason?

[O'Barr]

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>>> This is on the contrary very important because physics is an
>>> experimental science.
>>
>> It is not a foundational question, physics is natural science.
>> It is important for experimental physics, no doubt.
>
> Very strange opinion. You wrote similar statements in a recent
> discussion with Matthew Nobes and he also was surprised and
> disagreed with your sharp distinction between theory and
> experiment.

But this is standard Popper. The basic idea of Poppers methodology is
the priority of theory. There is no experiment without theory.

>> Now, in a state of reality lambda this allows to make unique
>> predictions about the observables in this state, and to predict
>> relations between them. And there is no necessity that the set of all
>> observables allows to compute lambda uniquely.
>
> It is wise to choose a fundamental theory which make this
> functional as simple as possible.

Indeed.

A theory which uses g_ij(x,t), A_i(x,t) is simple, a theory which
defines a factor space over them is more complicate. Else, we would
not use g_ij(x,t), A_i(x,t) in computations but some coordinates on
this factor space.

>>> But let's go back to my above points. How do you justify that
>>> [f(x),g(y)] = 0 for Bosonic fields if (x-y)^2 < 0 and the same
>>> relation with an anticommutator for Fermionic fields without the
>>> concept of causality used in SR ?
>>
>> I use the concept of causality in LET which also forbids correlations
>> which may be applied to transfer information.

> So relativistic causality is enforced when it can have consequences
> on causal correlation but "absolute causality" is used when one
> needs to save realism from experimental contradictions. That seems
> more complicated than the universal use of the same notion of
> causality.

No, it is all the same fundamental notion of causality. And it is all
the same symmetry mechanism which makes some correlations impossible.

>>> Heisenberg opened his 1925 paper about his mechanics of matrices
>>> with <<The present paper seeks to establish a basis for theoretical
>>> quantum mechanics founded exclusively upon relationships between
>>> quantities that in principle are measurable>> . This is undoubtedly
>>> a form of positivism.

>> No, it is a property of the theory. I do not doubt that Heisenberg
>> was highly influenced by positivistic nonsense.

> There are different degrees of positivism. The strongest one are
> indeed useless and no modern theory follows that metaphysics. But
> Quantum Mechanics shows that a more reasonable version of positivism
> can be useful in physics.

This type of "positivism" can always be used in realistic science too.

>> Schrödinger was much more realist, and has found QM too.

> The influence of Schrödinger on the development of Quantum Mechanics
> was marginal. Heisenberg had the equivalent of Schrödinger equation
> in a different and in fact more useful form.

Is it helpful to make such comparisons?

Strangely, solutions are often written down in Schrödinger form. And
the guys who prefer the Heisenberg form do it for metaphysical,
positivistic reasons.

> Did you ever try to solve the harmonic oscillator or the hydrogen
> atom with only Schrödinger's equation ?

A meaningless argument. Its not me who tries to forbid to use some
mathematical methods. Above formalisms are fine. Schrödingers
formalism is more realistic, to find Bohmian mechanics starting from
Schrödingers theory is much simpler.

> At least GET and GR could be discriminated experimentally. Not in a
> close future but theoretically it is possible. However your argument
> about SR, LET and Bell's inequality is just metaphysical since it
> does not lead to any kind of experimental test.

So what? Every decision in science is basically metaphysical. Such
is life. You can always deny that a given experiment falsifies your
pet theory by weakening it, including ad hoc assumptions and so on.
This is what has happened. And the discussion if this this has
happened or not is, by its nature, a metaphysical, methodological
discussion.

> In fact realism is not even required to make GET a valid physical
> theory.

Of course not. But if we accept realism SR/GR is dead. Falsified
experimentally in the past.

>>> Why should an atomic ether theory be the correct theory ?
>>
>> Why not? Who knows this 1905, comparing LET and SR?
>
> Since Maxwell physicists had struggle for decades without even
> approaching a mechanistic models of electrodynamics. The leading
> experts in this domain at the beginning of this century, Larmor,
> Lorentz, Poincaré, ... stopped searching in fact. Without a
> microscopic model the contraction of matter postulated by Lorentz
> seemed simply too complicated compared to Einstein's theory.

But now we see that this problem has an easy solution. GET is in
certain aspects even simpler than GR.

>>> You have just exposed your metaphysical prejudices.
>>
>> No, I think it is useful to find as much reasonable competitors as
>> available. Different schools starting with different metaphysical
>> interpretations will tend to develop different theories. More
>> competition gives a better chance for success.
>
> But again GET can be imagined without enforcing realism.

So what? We can always remove an assumption and the theory remains
viable (experimentally unfalsified). Removing realism makes the
theory weaker.

>>> New paradigms have to prove they are worth learning them.
>>
>> The situation with Bell's inequality, conservation laws, the problem
>> of time and the information loss problem is sufficient proof that
>> it is worth learning.
>
> I am not convinced. Again you focus on GR as if it was the only
> opponent of GET.

I do not have to convince somebody who learns fundamental physics that
it is worth learning GR. If my theory is in certain aspects better
than GR, this is sufficient proof that it is worth to learn it.

> But there are also superstrings theory and the recent M-theory which
> address also the quantization of gravity.

So what? AFAIU they try to address, without warranty of success.

> But contrary to GET they start to give testable predictions in
> forthcoming particle accelerators as LHC or NLC.

So what? Fine, it gives some hope that we can throw away this stuff
in near future ;-)

The point is that you seem to mingle "giving testable predictions"
(Poppers criterion) with "giving testable predictions different from
current standard theory" (completely unimportant from methodological
point of view).

> These theories are not based on Newtonian ideas at all. On the
> contrary they reuse the idea of spacetime manifolds with non-trivial
> topologies.

So what? Fine, I'm happy if they have fun with it.

>>> Yes I stated very loosely what I had in mind. I thought about a
>>> source of inspirations or a kind of guide. The geometrical
>>> concepts of SR and GR are very good examples.

>> Some type of inspiratory power?

> Yes.

So the full inspiratory power of relativity was already part of
Poincare's approach.

Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

In <39568B8C...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

> [Hogbin wrote (about the ether theory)]
> ... you cannot ... claim that it is physical and

> therefore better.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I do not need to `claim' it. Everyone knows it is
> physical!

[Hogbin wrote:]

Why did you not tell me this before? If 'everyone knows' the
aether is physical that is that then. No more argument.

O'Barr comments:
Good!!! We should agree on the obvious!

> [Hogbin wrote:]

> But why are all other clocks affected by the same amount? It
> seems an unbelievable coincidence to me that all processes
> are affected by the exact amount required to make any clock
> slow by exactly the same amount when it moves through the
> aether.

O'Barr wrote:
> ... For many things, they are just the way they are!

[Hogbin wrote:]

Fine, but then you cannot claim to have explained them.

O'Barr comments:
I do not know of anyone who thinks that the ether theory has
explained everything. Don't you really think you are being a
little unfair? It is good to make your point, but then you
should also remember that it is most likely only a point about
our own lack of knowledge. There is nothing inherently wrong
with a theory that for some facts, we might yet need more
information! It is not like it could be impossible! In fact,
many have addressed this problem and have offered possible
solutions.

> O'Barr comments:
> And SR is so ingrained into your mind that you can sit here
> and lie! You are just like your FAQ! LET is not bogus.

[Hogbin wrote:]

I did not say that it was. The point that I was making was
that just because a theory cannot be disproved that does not
mean that it is not bogus.

O'Barr comments:
The standard for science is to understand that no theory
can, in concept, be proved, they can only be disproved. And it
is scientific to accept a theory as long as it is not
disproved. Now what you say, might be technically correct, but
it would be nice if you would say what you are trying to say
scientifically.

> [Hogbin]
> I am sure that Lorentz, after publishing his theory, was
> hoping that other physicists would follow with more detailed
> explanations of the presumed affects of the aether.
> What actually happened was that Einstein came up with an
> alternative theory that people liked better.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I am glad that you worded this correctly. It was not a
> scientific choice!

[Hogbin]
I agree that it was not based on experimental evidence; LET
was not experimentally proved wrong.

O'Barr comments:
And what a correct way to see it! But in almost all text
books, those who study and read such books do not usually get
such a feeling! And those who would look at the SR FAQ would
not get such a feeling! And yet, all true scientist would
therefore leave the door not only open, but wide open, as to
what the ether approach might still offer us!

[Hogbin]
As many others must have pointed out to you, it is possible to
construct a whole lot of theories that are consistent with
experiment. It is obviously impractical and pointless to list
them all in a FAQ especially as only one theory is used and
taught throughout the world everyday.

O'Barr comments:
I see! If you had to mention LET, then what other theories
would you have to mention???? Tell me 10! No!!!! Tell me
only 5!!!!! No! No! Tell me only one more physical theory
that you would have to mention, if you mentioned the physical
theory of LET!!!!!!!!
What is wrong is that you, an SR expert, are now only
sensitive to math theories. In math, it is a fact that you can
normally find many ways to express a math theory. You can use
algebra, or integrals, or infinite sums, sines and cosines, or
many limits or approximations. But let me let you in on an old
thought! When it comes to physical explanations, you do not
normally find more than one way to physical explain things!
This is one of the power by having a physical explanation! It
is normally fairly solid, certain, unmovable, clear, and with
no second guessing at any time!!!!!! To my knowledge, there
are no other physical theories that would match the reality
that we presently see, as LET does. Some that have been
presented have responses that do not well match the causes (you
have changes where no effects could have been expected.) So
though you might have a few that you could consider, and
possibly even mention, they would not require more than a
passing acknowledgement.

> O'Barr comments: Just keep reading. What follows tells you
> exactly how it is physical:

[Hogbin]
You keep claiming this but you you have never done it.

O'Barr comments:
No one else seems to have a problem. Why are you the only
one hung up on what physical means?

> O'Barr comments:
> The ether tells us exactly how everything we see physically
> occurs. It does this for every single object. It does this
> with full consistency, and exactness. I would like for you
> to tell us how SR physically does this

[Hogbin]
I can tell you how SR does these things but whether this is a
'physical' explanation depends on what you mean by that word.
For SR, as with LET, every actual experiment that you can do
confirms the theory.

O'Barr comments:
I sure would not accept any math (to include the math of
geometry) as being a cause. Thank you for not offering it!

> O'Barr comments:
> Then you are a prejudiced person! In almost every post I
> have listed reasons why the ether is superior. Not at any
> time have you offered arguments against all these reasons.

[Hogbin]
I started out with a comparison of the two theories which you
found very fair.

[O'Barr]
> How could you argue against the ether's ability
> to give us a reason why c is a constant?

[Hogbin]
What is this reason?

[O'Barr]
> SR has no reasons what-so-ever!!!! How could
> you argue against the ether's ability to give us the
> capacity of measuring things faster than c, even infinity?
> How could you argue against the ether's ability to give
> us the capacity of removing back-in-time concepts.

Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute

And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!

(We need to imporve the SR FAQ)

Dennis McCarthy

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

>
Bourhis: >> The influence of Schrödinger on the development of Quantum

Mechanics
>> was marginal. Heisenberg had the equivalent of Schrödinger equation
>> in a different and in fact more useful form.

Dennis: That statement certainly should help again clearly reveal the extent of
bias of people who simple dislike those who disagree with them--and have no
ability to give credit where credit is due. Not surprisingly Oppenheimer,
Sommerfeld, Lederman, Boorse, and Motz completely disagree with Bourhis'
opinion.

"Schrodinger published his wave equation within weeks after he left the
villa. It was an immediate sensation, one of the most powerful mathematical
tools ever devised to deal with the structure of matter. (By 1960, more than
100,000 scientific papers had been published based on the application of
Schrodinger's equation.) He wrote 5 more papers in quick succession: all six
papers were published in a six month period that was among the greatest bursts
of creativity in scientific history. J. Robert Oppenheimer called the theory
of wave mechanics “perhaps the most perfect, most accurate, and most lovely
man has discovered.” Arthur Sommerfeld, the great physicist and
mathematician, said Schroedinger's theory “was the most astonishing among all
the astonishing discoveries of the twentieth century.”
--Leon Lederman, The God Particle

"The Schrodinger wave equation was and still is the wonder of atomic physics
for it presents a well-known and easily handled mathematical procedure for
solving any imaginable problem without using the cumbersome matrix algebra of
Born and his group."

--- Boorse and Motz, The World of the Atom

Dennis McCarthy

WEast35107

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

>[O'Barr]
>> How could you argue against the ether's ability
>> to give us a reason why c is a constant?
>
>[Hogbin]
>What is this reason?
>

What is the reason?
East

CJM

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

It was long thought that there was some medium,
the ether, in which light moved at speed c. This
ether was the counterpart of the medium in which
sounds moves. Thus, if one were moving relative to the
ether, the speed of light would appear different from
c. However, no experiment ever detected the ether
or measured changes in the speed of light due
to motion relative to the ether, and as far as we
know now, there is no ether. In fact, the strongest
evidence we have that there is no ether is the success
of the Theory of Relativity. The Theory of Relativity
could not be correct if the ether existed.

Kane & Sternheim "Physics,"
Copyright 1978/ John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

CJM
-long time caller, 1st time listener-

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

Subject: The Ether Theory
6/27/00

In <20000627174113...@nso-fi.aol.com>

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
And these words are scientifically wrong. Where you
see it written: 'the strongest evidence we have that there

is no ether is the success of the Theory of Relativity. The
Theory of Relativity could not be correct if the ether

existed.' These words are unscientific! And every SR
expert on this net should now know this. And if there were
an honest bone in them, they would require that such
unscientific concepts be corrected! The SR FAQ should
make sure that no one continues with such silly and untrue
understanding of things! The LET is 'proved' every time
SR is 'proved'!!! There is no physical theory that has
ever been more well proved than LET!!!!!!! The ether is
alive and well and even explains SR! And it will be
accepted as the superior theory!
These lies that you read in all these books are terrible,
and they are sick, and the people who put these lies in
these books, and the SR experts who let these lies go
forth, are going to pay heavy personal loss of self respect.
We are all going to know what has been done to us, and
it will be funny, but it is also serious. Any real scientist
would start immediately to correct this. Even on this net
you should hear from every SR expert to correct this.
The sad thing is, they won't! They run and hide! They
will admit to nothing! It is your fault that you
misunderstood! All we were doing was just explaining
SR! And we were not wrong in what we explained!
What a sad way to be!!!!!!!!!!

GLOBARR

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

In <20000627121656...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
<weast...@aol.com> (WEast35107) wrote:

O'Barr comments:
Why would anyone want to ask me?
Let us make everything just as clear as possible. The
ether theory does not tell us what the ether is. It does not
tell us what it is composed of, or the size of ether
particles, or how ether particles might affect each other.
All the ether theory tells us is: 1) That it exists (this
means that it is physical.) 2) That it results in, or it is
what is used to govern, the speed of light. And 3) It
results in, or it is what is used to determine, the changes
in the rates of clocks and the lengths of rulers. Again, as
the ether theory presently stands, it does not tell us how it
does any of these things. It would be impossible to say how
it would do any of these things if we did not even know what
the ether was composed of. So your questioning shows a total
lack of knowledge of the ether theory, or you are being
purposefully deceitful!
Now none of this is meant to say that we do not know a
lot. We know the values of some of the properties of the
ether, that have been carefully measured, and they seem to
perfectly meet what would be required or expected. And we
can, by measurements, confirm that if light were exactly
physically controlled as said, and rates of clocks and
lengths of rulers were physically controlled exactly as
required by the theory, that we would get exactly everything
that we presently see and measure! These things are all
sure, and positive. And thus by theory, we do not need more
to confirm its assumptions. And it makes everything clear
that these simple causes and effects, no matter how poorly
any one of them might yet be understood, would perfectly
account for everything seen!!!!! And just as important,
there are no known facts that would preclude any ether
assumption from being correct. Therefore, it is an extremely
strong and doable theory. And it takes us several steps
beyond SR!
The fact that you also want a cheery pie is
understandable, but it shows total lack of understanding of
the present theory. And I do not believe that you were doing
all this just for any honest desires to know something!!!!

Now personally, I know and understand the at theory, which
I believe will eventually be used to give us the mechanics of
the ether. And in the at theory, the waving that is done by
some moving particles is actually a physical motion. So in
the ether, you could have both, waves in the medium itself,
and also particles that move up and down as they progress
through it. It will be most interesting as we get all this
together.

Now I will answer this post because I do not know East,
and on the off chance that he asked his question with some
degree of honesty, I am happy to try to answer what I can!

So back to the original question: How could you argue

against the ether's ability to give us a reason why c is a
constant?

The implication is that you can't!
Because, by theory, the ether is physical. We know that
physical effects require physical causes. The ether meets
this test or requirement.
Because, by theory, the ether is everywhere. We know
that physical effects require physical causes that are local
to the effect being governed. The ether meets this test or
requirement.
Because, by experience, waves moving in a physical
medium, often have relationships where their velocities are
constant. To assume such a relationship is therefore a very
normal, reasonable, expected relationship.
There is nothing present that would hinder such concepts.
Therefore, who would want to argue against any of this?
Not I! And it is impossible for me to imagine any honest
person who would try to disagree!

SR offers nothing to support its assumptions! SR is only
math, with no physical support at all in any of its
assumptions! Therefore, the ether is superior. And we are
not far away in being willing to say so!!!!

Etherman

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

lq...@aol.com (CJM) wrote:
>
>It was long thought that there was some medium,
>the ether, in which light moved at speed c. This
>ether was the counterpart of the medium in which
>sounds moves. Thus, if one were moving relative to the
>ether, the speed of light would appear different from
>c. However, no experiment ever detected the ether
>or measured changes in the speed of light due
>to motion relative to the ether, and as far as we
>know now, there is no ether. In fact, the strongest
>evidence we have that there is no ether is the success
>of the Theory of Relativity. The Theory of Relativity
>could not be correct if the ether existed.
>
>Kane & Sternheim "Physics,"
>Copyright 1978/ John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Totally false. The ether is irrelevant in SR, but
not inconsistent with it. Read up on the Lorentz Aether
Theory.

Etherman

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com

Luc Bourhis

unread,

Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00

Dennis McCarthy wrote:

>>> The influence of Schrodinger on the development of Quantum

>>> Mechanics was marginal. Heisenberg had the equivalent of

>>> Schrodinger equation in a different and in fact more useful
>>> form.
>

> Dennis: That statement certainly should help again clearly
> reveal the extent of bias of people who simple dislike those who
> disagree with them--and have no ability to give credit where
> credit is due. Not surprisingly Oppenheimer, Sommerfeld,
> Lederman, Boorse, and Motz completely disagree with Bourhis'
> opinion.

> [snip: citation of **vulgarization** writings without any
> comment of Dennis]

Frankly you should avoid to challenge me about quantum mechanics
because I know the subject very well whereas you have only vague
ideas about it. Your relying on argument by authorities in your
reply proves my point. Your citations did not mention that:
- Schroedinger did not foresee the probabilistic interpretation of
his wave function. This _fundamental_ property was introduced by
Born, a close collaborator of Heisenberg. Therefore the original
equation is "pre-quantum".
- one year before Heisenberg obtained all results derived by
Schroedinger with his equation (harmonic oscillator, hydrogen atom)
by using his own mechanics of matrices, and more since he was able
to treat spin whereas Schroedinger's equation did not incorporate
that physical property.
- the modern formulation of quantum mechanics is entirely based on
algebraic concepts, as was Heisenberg theory, and not on wave
concepts. Nowadays the original equation of Schroedinger is just
the dynamical equation for a quantum state of spin 0 written in a
particular base.
- the attempts to find a relativistic wave equation lead to
incoherent theory (Klein-Gordon, Dirac) and this is only the
algebraic ideas of Heisenberg (creation and annihilation operators,
commutation relations) which solved the problem. Wave mechanics was
a dead end.

However Schroedinger's equation was temporarily successful because
physicists of this time knew better partial differential equations
than algebra of operators. But the latter approach is at the heart
of quantum field theories. Not surprisingly Schroedinger did not
play any role in the development of them whereas Heisenberg was a
leading force in this story. In fact Schroedinger did not even
participate to the formalisation of quantum mechanics because he
kept thinking that the wave function had a physical reality.

So please stop trolling about what you do not know.

--
Luc Bourhis
Center for Particle Physics / University of Durham

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00

Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
> - the modern formulation of quantum mechanics is entirely based on
> algebraic concepts, as was Heisenberg theory, and not on wave
> concepts.

A choice of presentation, that's all.

> - the attempts to find a relativistic wave equation lead to
> incoherent theory (Klein-Gordon, Dirac) and this is only the
> algebraic ideas of Heisenberg (creation and annihilation operators,
> commutation relations) which solved the problem. Wave mechanics was
> a dead end.

You can as well define a wave function in field theory - it is simply
a functional on the classical configurations - the fields.

> However Schroedinger's equation was temporarily successful because
> physicists of this time knew better partial differential equations
> than algebra of operators. But the latter approach is at the heart
> of quantum field theories.

You mingle the "heart" with the usual representation.

Physicists at that time have preferred partial differential equations
over algebra of operators. Today they prefer algebra of operators
over partial differential equations on functional spaces.

A secondary question about what we know better, what we have learned
and are used to. Not the heart.

David Evens

unread,

Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00

There's also the matter of what you're trying to do. For many
applications, algebra of operators is more convenient: If you want to
extract predictions from the equations, it is much simpler to simply
apply operators that extract the desired predictions than to perform
elaborate explicit partial derivatives.

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

> Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
> >>> GET+BM sounds interesting, you could call it a hidden universe
> >>> theory. Do you think that some aspects of the aether (Universe) are
> >>> in principle hidden forever or do you think that some day we will be
> >>> able to know everything?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure.
>

> > [Hogbin] You are rather hedging your bets. If you think that there
> > are variables that are in principle forever hidden from our
> > knowledge then you lose realism, as you define it.
>
> No, realism as I define it is about existence, different from
> observability.

This is a very unreal definition of realism.

>
>
> >> In the very real sense. If the theory is true, the ether exists,
> >> moreover, everything is part of it. The conspiracy is explained by
> >> the conspiracy that all other fields are material properties of the
> >> ether. This gives them common properties - no momentum exchange terms
> >> with the ether. Non-ether types of matter would have such terms and
> >> therefore interact with the ether in another way, breaking the EEP.
>

> > [MH] Are you saying aether is real but undetectable (except for the
> > effects of relativity).
>
> All we detect is ether. Only some really different situations we
> cannot distinguish by observation. I would not name this very partial
> unobservability an "unobervable ether".
>

[MH]
Are you saying that in some circumstances it might be possible to detect the
aether? If so what would these be?

>
>
> >>> How then does movement through space affect time?
> >>
> >> See the equations.
>

> > [Hogbin] In other words you postulate some new equations which make
> > this so. I am sure that the earlier aether theorists hoped that the
> > aether and its effects could be explained using existing physics
> > theories. If that could be done it would give aether theories a
> > distinct advantage over relativity.
>
> Note that the equations I propose are well known in condensed matter
> theory - they are known as conservation laws.
>

But you still need to invent new physics for your theory to work.

>
> >>> Would concrete proof of the existence of a black hole disprove
> >>> GET?
>
> >> Not what is today considered to be a BH proof in GR context. That
> >> means simply the existence of a massive body with small enough
> >> radius so that GR requires a black hole to describe this. Possibly
> >> some agreement with GR predictions in some environment. But this
> >> agreement can be obtained by a sufficiently small parameter Upsilon
> >> of my theory.
>

> > [Hogbin] Your extra parameter(s) are a disadvantage of your theory
> > in that they make it harder for it to make falsifiable predictions.
>
> Yep. But they have effects which allow to omit inflation theory. The
> most serious problems solved by inflation theory (flatness,
> cosmological horizon problem) do not exist in GET.
>
> One parameter allows to forget inflation theory, the other allows to
> explain some part of the dark matter. Not what I would name a
> disadvantage.

I still think that your extra parameters, which allow you to match almost any
experimental results are a weak point of your theory.

You are sitting on the fence and hedging your bets too much to arouse serious
interest.

Martin Hogbin

>
>

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00

>
> > [Hogbin wrote:]
> > But why are all other clocks affected by the same amount? It
> > seems an unbelievable coincidence to me that all processes
> > are affected by the exact amount required to make any clock
> > slow by exactly the same amount when it moves through the
> > aether.
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> > ... For many things, they are just the way they are!
>
> [Hogbin wrote:]
> Fine, but then you cannot claim to have explained them.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I do not know of anyone who thinks that the ether theory has
> explained everything.

[Hogbin]
But earlier you said that LET explains clock slowing. Does it or does
it not?

>
>
> > O'Barr comments:
> > And SR is so ingrained into your mind that you can sit here
> > and lie! You are just like your FAQ! LET is not bogus.
>
> [Hogbin wrote:]
> I did not say that it was. The point that I was making was
> that just because a theory cannot be disproved that does not
> mean that it is not bogus.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> The standard for science is to understand that no theory
> can, in concept, be proved, they can only be disproved. And it
> is scientific to accept a theory as long as it is not
> disproved.

[Hogbin]

I agree that , within its realm of applicability LET cannot be
disproved. But for the reasons that I discussed when I first joined
this thread physicists have preferred Einstein's theory.

>
> >
>
> [Hogbin]
> As many others must have pointed out to you, it is possible to
> construct a whole lot of theories that are consistent with
> experiment. It is obviously impractical and pointless to list
> them all in a FAQ especially as only one theory is used and
> taught throughout the world everyday.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I see! If you had to mention LET, then what other theories
> would you have to mention???? Tell me 10! No!!!! Tell me
> only 5!!!!! No! No! Tell me only one more physical theory
> that you would have to mention, if you mentioned the physical
> theory of LET!!!!!!!!
>

[Hogbin]
You might like to have a look at the postings of Brian Jones. He uses
more or less the same maths as LET but claims that there is no aether!

Would you put his ideas on the FAQ?

The fact is that there is only one theory that is used and taught
throughout the world and that is relativity.

Of course I forgot one thing; it is called the relativity FAQ. People
look there expecting to find information on the theory of relativity.

[O'Barr]

> What is wrong is that you, an SR expert, are now only
> sensitive to math theories. In math, it is a fact that you can
> normally find many ways to express a math theory. You can use
> algebra, or integrals, or infinite sums, sines and cosines, or
> many limits or approximations. But let me let you in on an old
> thought! When it comes to physical explanations, you do not
> normally find more than one way to physical explain things!
> This is one of the power by having a physical explanation! It
> is normally fairly solid, certain, unmovable, clear, and with
> no second guessing at any time!!!!!! To my knowledge, there
> are no other physical theories that would match the reality
> that we presently see, as LET does.

[Hogbin]
You keep in talking about 'physical' but you complain when I ask what
you mean by it.

> .>

>
> > O'Barr comments: Just keep reading. What follows tells you
> > exactly how it is physical:
>
> [Hogbin]
> You keep claiming this but you you have never done it.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> No one else seems to have a problem. Why are you the only
> one hung up on what physical means?
>

[Hogbin]
Probably because no one else is reading this.

You were the one who uses the word 'physical' as a reason for the
superiority of the aether theory. Clearly you are not using this word
on the everyday sense therefore you must define what you do mean by it.

>
> >
>
> > O'Barr comments:
> > The ether tells us exactly how everything we see physically
> > occurs. It does this for every single object. It does this
> > with full consistency, and exactness. I would like for you
> > to tell us how SR physically does this
>
> [Hogbin]
> I can tell you how SR does these things but whether this is a
> 'physical' explanation depends on what you mean by that word.
> For SR, as with LET, every actual experiment that you can do
> confirms the theory.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I sure would not accept any math (to include the math of
> geometry) as being a cause. Thank you for not offering it!
>

[Hogbin]
I have not offered it only because I know that you do not accept SR.
Bear in mind that the rest of the world does.

>
> >
>
> > O'Barr comments:
> > Then you are a prejudiced person! In almost every post I
> > have listed reasons why the ether is superior. Not at any
> > time have you offered arguments against all these reasons.
>
> [Hogbin]
> I started out with a comparison of the two theories which you
> found very fair.
>
> [O'Barr]
> > How could you argue against the ether's ability
> > to give us a reason why c is a constant?
>
> [Hogbin]
> What is this reason?
>
> [O'Barr]

> > SR has no reasons what-so-ever!!!! .

[Hogbin]
In SR it is one of the original postulates.
You still have not given me the LET reason..

orton

unread,

Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00

go,

yes.

http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm

_the third side of every coin always gave me the edge, (orton).

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
>>> [Hogbin] You are rather hedging your bets. If you think that there
>>> are variables that are in principle forever hidden from our
>>> knowledge then you lose realism, as you define it.
>>
>> No, realism as I define it is about existence, different from
>> observability.
>
> This is a very unreal definition of realism.

I do not understand why everything real should be observable. These
are a priori very different things. Only by a very happy accident we
would be able to observe everything.

>> All we detect is ether. Only some really different situations we
>> cannot distinguish by observation. I would not name this very partial
>> unobservability an "unobervable ether".

> Are you saying that in some circumstances it might be possible to
> detect the aether?

No, I'm saying that whatever we observe, we observe the ether
(according to GET).

>> Note that the equations I propose are well known in condensed
>> matter theory - they are known as conservation laws.

> But you still need to invent new physics for your theory to work.

Not much. The conservation laws are classical, Lagrange formalism
too. The new part is the relation between them.

>>> [Hogbin] Your extra parameter(s) are a disadvantage of your theory
>>> in that they make it harder for it to make falsifiable
>>> predictions.

>> Yep. But they have effects which allow to omit inflation
>> theory. The most serious problems solved by inflation theory
>> (flatness, cosmological horizon problem) do not exist in GET.

>> One parameter allows to forget inflation theory, the other allows
>> to explain some part of the dark matter. Not what I would name a
>> disadvantage.

> I still think that your extra parameters, which allow you to match
> almost any experimental results are a weak point of your theory.

Sorry, but two additional parameters are not sufficient to match
almost any experimental results. They allow in the worst case to
match two additional experimental results, which become after this
measurements of these two parameters.

> You are sitting on the fence and hedging your bets too much to
> arouse serious interest.

Of course, if somebody does not want to be interested in ether theory,
I'm unable to make him interested.

GLOBARR

unread,

Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00

In <39685361...@hogbin.org.uk>
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:

>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .

> I do not know of anyone who thinks that the ether theory
> has explained everything.

[Hogbin wrote:]

But earlier you said that LET explains clock slowing. Does it
or does it not?

O'Barr Comments:
I find your questions, and all the other SR experts
questions, so dumb and silly. You know all these things. SR
experts can answer every one of these questions even better than
I can. And yet you sit here and peck and peck and peck! Why
are you all playing so dumb???? I believe that you are
unwilling to get down to the level I keep pushing, and by asking
mindless questions, you get to escape the more important
questions! Shame on you all!!!!!!!!

You, an educated person, want me to tell you what a hundred
year old theory says about clocks???? Anyone can take what is
called a light clock, that consists of two parallel mirrors with
a light pulse bouncing back and forth between these two mirrors.
In the ether, where the speed of the light is an absolute
constant c, the ticks of this clock can be considered to be the
bounce of each pulse off the mirrors. If the mirrors are
arranged so that their velocity vector lies in the plane of the
mirrors, the rate of this clock will automatically be:
SQRT(1-vv/cc).
And this is the exact rate that is desired.
Now as to your question, does the ether explains clock
slowing???? There are different degrees to which this is done.
As far as I am concerned, the ether explains the rate of a light
clock perfectly and completely. At this point, one only has to
add one small assumption: all clocks react the same way! And
there are many ways in which one could assume that such an
assumption would be reasonable and possible.
But, it certainly is not perfect. We certainly can all see
that we would like to have more answers. So your question is
relative in some ways. Compared to SR, does the ether answer
this question? Absolutely!!!! Compared to all possible
questions? No. Now is there anything here that you did not
already know????? Why would you ask a question that you could
answer??????
Now theoretically, the ether tells us why clocks slow down.
The ether does it! And the ether tells us what function
governs it. Its absolute velocity! And it tells us the
function. So in theory, the ether theory most certainly tells
us why clocks slow down. Does it tells us everything????
Absolutely not. It does not tell us why any of these things are
true. But this does not mean that it didn't tell us what does
it, and by what variable, and by what function. Therefore, what
would you want to change in what I said????

[Hogbin wrote:]
I agree that, within its realm of applicability LET cannot be

disproved. But for the reasons that I discussed when I first
joined this thread physicists have preferred Einstein's theory.

O'Barr comments:
And what a delight to see that you also see that it was
therefore just a personal choice!!!! The SR FAQ, if it were
honest, and scientific, would declare to every reader: The
belief in SR (over the more simpler and normal physics of the
ether), cannot be based on science!

[Hogbin wrote:]

You might like to have a look at the postings of Brian
Jones. He uses more or less the same maths as LET but claims
that there is no aether!
Would you put his ideas on the FAQ?

O'Barr comments:
IMO, I would not want any theory to replace LET. LET must be
presented fully, completely, and fairly, with its rightful
comparison with SR. Now after that is done, then other theories
would be welcomed, but always with a fair scientific statement
attached to it.

Hogbin wrote:
The fact is that there is only one theory that is used and
taught throughout the world and that is relativity.
Of course I forgot one thing; it is called the relativity
FAQ. People look there expecting to find information on the
theory of relativity.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely. SR has to be there. But anything said about SR
should be scientifically correct, and the important things that
would be required to properly understand SR should also be
there, and that is why the ether (LET) has to be included!

>
O'Barr comments: . . .

> No one else seems to have a problem. Why are you the only
> one hung up on what physical means?

[Hogbin wrote:]

Probably because no one else is reading this.

O'Barr comments:
Finally, you probably said something that was correct!

Hogbin wrote:]

You were the one who uses the word 'physical' as a reason for
the superiority of the aether theory. Clearly you are not using
this word on the everyday sense therefore you must define what
you do mean by it.

O'Barr comments:

Sorry, I do not use it in any way different than what Newton
would have used it, or Lorentz, or even Einstein! Why don't you
tell me what the problem is that you find so difficult?

>
> O'Barr comments:
> I sure would not accept any math (to include the math of
> geometry) as being a cause. Thank you for not offering it!

[Hogbin wrote:]

I have not offered it only because I know that you do not accept
SR. Bear in mind that the rest of the world does.

[Hogbin wrote, about the speed of light being a constant:]

In SR it is one of the original postulates.
You still have not given me the LET reason..

O'Barr comments:
Since you know the ether concepts better than I, why would
you want me to answer this question? This question is just the
same as the question you asked about clocks. Your question is
able to be answered in much the same way. Therefore, your very
question seems silly.
Why not address more important questions? Why not tell us
how the ether is simpler than SR? Why not tell us how 3-D is
simpler than 4-D? Why not say that physical causes and physical
effects are superior? Why not say that simple velocity
additions are simpler? Why not do at least one of these
things?? Why not do all these things? Are you really saying
that you cannot see and agree to any of these points???
The day is going to come where these posts will be presented
as a funny thing. Your unwillingness to even discuss obvious
things will question your very honesty, your very soundness of
mind. How can you do this to me, and to yourself????? It is
not logical! What kind of an education did you have, that would
allow you to react in such ways? Do you not think before you
answer???? What is your problem, that you cannot allow yourself
to make simple and fair comparisons between two scientific
theories?

Jones

unread,

Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00

:> [Hogbin]

:> It is clear what occurs in so far as clocks are required to
:> slow and rods to shrink; it has never been made clear how
:> these effects come about.
:>
:> O'Barr comments:
:> The light clock is a specific example of how at
:> least one clock naturally results in slowing down in the
:> ether, with the exact relationship required.
:
: [Hogbin]
: But why are all other clocks affected by the same amount? It
: seems an unbelievable coincidence to me that all processes are
: affected by the exact amount required to make any clock slow by
: exactly the same amount when it moves through the aether.
: Far better to say that time itself is involved.

I have been waiting for someone to ask an etherist this very question;
it is the lynchpin of the LET argument. "If the light clock is slowed by
a physical process (e.g. movement of the ether), how does this same
process slow other types of clocks?"

SR gives a simple explanation: the geometry of spacetime affects all
clocks equally. SR uses an assumption that c is constant in all frames of
reference. Given this fact, it is easy to show that the light clock
appears to tick more slowly to a moving observer. Since any clock
device (mechanical, atomic, etc.) can be placed next to the light clock
and since all observers must agree these two clocks are synchronized (they
occupy nearly the same point in space to all observers), SR concludes the
slowing effect seen in the light clock must apply to all clocks moving in
the same way.

SR, as I understand it, attributes this to the geometry of
spacetime, which makes the experiment independent of a particular place,
time, or relation to physical objects (SR neglects gravity and spacetime
curvature). That alone is a compelling reason for adopting it if it
matches up with experiment: it isn't riddled with exceptions or
complications.

Now let's hear the etherist explanation of how a physical process like
motion of the either can affect different types of timing mechanisms in
different ways:

: O'Barr comments:

: I guess we all have our problems? Why should there even be
: time? Why do all clocks keep linear time? If it is geometry,
: why would all clocks follow the same geometry? In fact, why
: would any clock follow any man-made math at all? Don't you
: think you have a few things backwards? To me, you are making
: up a problem, which is really no different no matter what you
: believe. For many things, they are just the way they are!

"I guess we all have our problems?" This is the best the etherists can
do: "It just is that way, so stop asking embarassing questions." As part
of the theory, this magical ether is supposed to physically (a very
important word in ether theory, as they take it to be the means of
causality in the slowing of clocks) affect the trajectory of a light
clock, a swinging pendulum, and an atomic decay all in the same manifest
way. Worse, they ask us to accept it as an article of faith, with a few
whines about how Lorentz himself believed it for support (appeal to
authority is more a matter for theological than scientific debates).

The support for ether theory is often cast in terms of "simplicity"--it
just makes more common sense than the weird geometrical notions of SR.
Causality is another important factor, as if physical interaction is the
only means to express a cause-effect relationship ("well, something has to
be causing these clocks to slow down"). This one question and the
pathetic answer of the etherist should quickly dismiss the idea that ether
theory follows common sense, and I suspect the sharper minds reading this
have already come up with examples of non-physical cause-and-effect
relationships (Aristotle did it 2400 years ago!).

I suppose this post won't change many minds, given both the paranoid
bunker-mentality apparent in many etherist posts and the fact that only a
few crackpots still believe this nonsense, but it is my time to
waste. However my time is limited so I'm not going to wade into any
lengthy post-war over this. Etherists can take their best shot without
fear of reprisal from me; I think the case has been clearly made, so if
you want to flame me for not having the stomach to fight, or if you just
want to call me an a**hole, fire away.

--
chj...@wwa.com | "Nil admirari prope res est una, Numici,
Christopher Jones | solaque quae possit facere et servare beatum."
Chicago, IL | - Horace Epi. I.6

GLOBARR

unread,

Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00

In <iI1g5.26246$B33....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>

Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

:> [Hogbin]
:> It is clear what occurs in so far as clocks are required to
:> slow and rods to shrink; it has never been made clear how
:> these effects come about.

O'Barr comments:
How it all comes about is certainly interesting, and
certainly important. However, how it all happens is not a part
of the theory, and cannot be a part of a reason not to accept
the theory. We might expect to know some day, but when we
know, it will not be called LET! It will be called some other
theory!

:> O'Barr comments:
:> The light clock is a specific example of how at
:> least one clock naturally results in slowing down in the
:> ether, with the exact relationship required.
:
: [Hogbin]
: But why are all other clocks affected by the same amount? It
: seems an unbelievable coincidence to me that all processes
: are affected by the exact amount required to make any clock
: slow by exactly the same amount when it moves through the
: aether. Far better to say that time itself is involved.

Jones wrote:
I have been waiting for someone to ask an etherist this very
question; it is the lynchpin of the LET argument. "If the
light clock is slowed by a physical process (e.g. movement of
the ether), how does this same process slow other types of
clocks?"

O'Barr comments:
Why not put these thoughts to work: All the main particles
that we see seem to have charge (even quarks.) All charge
effects are carried with the speed of light! Why would not all
clocks, that are controlled by forces and effects that are
limited to the speed of light, not be the same as a light clock
itself? Now this might not account for all possible clocks,
but it sure would account for the vast majority, and I am not
sure that we know enough to say how many we really have to
account for! Do you know?????

Jones wrote: SR gives a simple explanation: the geometry of

spacetime affects all clocks equally.

O'Barr comments:
This is no explanation! This is just math! This is just
saying they do it, it does not say how! Surely you are not
this dumb to think that this is an explanation!!! When were
you born?

Jones wrote:
SR uses an assumption that c is constant in all frames of
reference. Given this fact, it is easy to show that the light
clock appears to tick more slowly to a moving observer. Since
any clock device (mechanical, atomic, etc.) can be placed next
to the light clock and since all observers must agree these two
clocks are synchronized (they occupy nearly the same point in
space to all observers), SR concludes the slowing effect seen
in the light clock must apply to all clocks moving in the same
way.

O'Barr comments:
Sounds just like what one would assume in the ether! If we
find that all clocks act the same, and we can find out how one
acts, then we would know how they all act! A perfectly correct
way to think!

Jones wrote:
SR, as I understand it, attributes this to the geometry of
spacetime, which makes the experiment independent of a
particular place, time, or relation to physical objects (SR
neglects gravity and spacetime curvature). That alone is a
compelling reason for adopting it if it matches up with
experiment: it isn't riddled with exceptions or complications.

O'Barr comments:
And so the ether is riddled with exceptions and
complications? The ether has the identical math as SR. If
there is any problem or any exception or any complication with
the ether, then SR has the identical problem! Somehow, you are
not thinking!

Jones wrote:
Now let's hear the etherist explanation of how a physical
process like motion of the either can affect different types of
timing mechanisms in different ways:

O'Barr comments:

First of all, how the ether affects things, that is, by what
specific method, is not in the theory! That there are things,
that these things are affected, and by what function they are
affected, that is part of the theory. For you to ask more than
this is certain understandable, but you should also be kind
enough to know that it is not part of the theory! Thus, you
are being unfair! You are being unscientific in trying to
causes a problem where none exists! And you ought to admit to
this inappropriateness!

: O'Barr comments:
: I guess we all have our problems? Why should there even be
: time? Why do all clocks keep linear time? If it is
: geometry, why would all clocks follow the same geometry? In
: fact, why would any clock follow any man-made math at all?
: Don't you think you have a few things backwards? To me, you
: are making up a problem, which is really no different no
: matter what you believe. For many things, they are just the
: way they are!

Jones wrote:
"I guess we all have our problems?" This is the best the
etherists can do: "It just is that way, so stop asking
embarassing questions." As part of the theory, this magical
ether is supposed to physically (a very important word in ether
theory, as they take it to be the means of causality in the
slowing of clocks) affect the trajectory of a light clock, a
swinging pendulum, and an atomic decay all in the same manifest
way. Worse, they ask us to accept it as an article of faith,
with a few whines about how Lorentz himself believed it for
support (appeal to authority is more a matter for theological
than scientific debates).

O'Barr comments:
No one is being asked not to ask questions. The problem is
the application of the question to the theory!
The last time I checked, neither SR nor GR was considered to
be the `theory of everything.' Therefore, anyone with a brain
could find things that were not explained by such theories.
What your problem is, is that you do not know the difference
between a question that is appropriate, verse questions that
are not! The fact that the ether cannot answer what time is,
or exactly how time is controlled, is important to know, but it
is hardly newsworthy! If you want to use this as an excuse to
ignore the ether, be as dumb as you wish! But it is
meaningless!

Jones wrote:
The support for ether theory is often cast in terms of
"simplicity"--it just makes more common sense than the weird
geometrical notions of SR. Causality is another important
factor, as if physical interaction is the only means to express
a cause-effect relationship ("well, something has to be causing
these clocks to slow down"). This one question and the
pathetic answer of the etherist should quickly dismiss the idea
that ether theory follows common sense, and I suspect the
sharper minds reading this have already come up with examples
of non-physical cause-and-effect relationships (Aristotle did
it 2400 years ago!).

O'Barr comments:
May I congratulate you on being the first SR expert who has
at least stated the words: The ether is `simpler' and the
ether has `physical causality' and the ether has physical
effects by physical interactions, etc. Thank you for at least
acknowledging what the positions are!

Jones wrote:
I suppose this post won't change many minds, given both the
paranoid bunker-mentality apparent in many etherist posts and
the fact that only a few crackpots still believe this nonsense,
but it is my time to waste. However my time is limited so I'm
not going to wade into any lengthy post-war over this.
Etherists can take their best shot without fear of reprisal
from me; I think the case has been clearly made, so if you want
to flame me for not having the stomach to fight, or if you just
want to call me an a**hole, fire away.

O'Barr comments:
Thanks for being so brave! But the ether is superior. It
is superior in that it does produce for us a simpler reality.
It is physical, and provides physical limits to the math. It
is physical, and thus has physical explanations missing in SR.
It is physical, and thus has physical causes and physical
effects. It is physical, and thus understandable, and thus
logical. It is able to handle speeds faster than c, and there
are no breaks in symmetry, and no back-in-time problems.
For you to say you will not respond is funny. You haven't
so far. Why would anyone think you would? All you SR experts
are sick! You will not enter into a real fight! You are at
least smart enough to know that the war is over! All you can
now do is just hide! And history will not treat you very
well! How can educated people not respond to such obvious
things? What power is it that you prevents you from making
fair comments over just a theory???? Is you life dependent on
your blind acceptance of SR? Why can not at least one of you
play the scientific roll, such as: let us assume the ether is
correct. What would that do for us??? Wouldn't that be
simple? And wouldn't we all learn something???? But no one of
you will dare make a fair comparison! What a sad thing!!!!!

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

> >> Note that the equations I propose are well known in condensed
> >> matter theory - they are known as conservation laws.
>
> > But you still need to invent new physics for your theory to work.
>
> Not much. The conservation laws are classical, Lagrange formalism
> too. The new part is the relation between them.
>

Is this a correct description of your theory?

There is the world of matter as we know it, complete with its laws of
physics.

There is the world of aether, which internally has its own laws of physics
which are similar to those that apply to condensed matter.

The interaction between these two worlds is limited to that which is
necessary for us to observe the results that we do.

Martin Hogbin

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jul 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/31/00

Jones <chj...@wwa.com> writes:
> I have been waiting for someone to ask an etherist this very question;
> it is the lynchpin of the LET argument. "If the light clock is slowed by
> a physical process (e.g. movement of the ether), how does this same
> process slow other types of clocks?"

According to my ether theory (GET, see get.ilja-schmelzer.net) the
ether is universal. All fields (gravity, all gauge fields and fermion
fields) describe properties of the ether.

> SR gives a simple explanation: the geometry of spacetime affects all
> clocks equally.

No difference in simplicity.

> SR uses an assumption that c is constant in all frames of
> reference.

GET derives it.

> SR, as I understand it, attributes this to the geometry of
> spacetime, which makes the experiment independent of a particular place,
> time, or relation to physical objects (SR neglects gravity and spacetime
> curvature). That alone is a compelling reason for adopting it if it
> matches up with experiment: it isn't riddled with exceptions or
> complications.

It is always funny to look at all these confusion about the "twin
paradox". It does not even exist in LET: moving clocks are slower,
that's all. Of course, it doesn't exist in SR too - but, by a strange
accident, in this "much simpler" theory a lot of people are confused
about it ;-)

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Jul 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/31/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
> Is this a correct description of your theory?
>
> There is the world of matter as we know it, complete with its laws of
> physics.
>
> There is the world of aether, which internally has its own laws of physics
> which are similar to those that apply to condensed matter.
>
> The interaction between these two worlds is limited to that which is
> necessary for us to observe the results that we do.

No, its not correct.

There is the GET ether, which is described by variables like density,
velocity, pressure we know from condensed matter theory, and other
"material properties". We know such other material properties from
condensed matter theory to, they are different for different
materials.

The common universal properties (density, velocity, pressure) describe
gravity (the universal interaction). The other material properties
describe the other fields (gauge fields, fermion fields).

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Aug 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/1/00

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

> Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
> > Is this a correct description of your theory?
> >
> > There is the world of matter as we know it, complete with its laws of
> > physics.
> >
> > There is the world of aether, which internally has its own laws of physics
> > which are similar to those that apply to condensed matter.
> >
> > The interaction between these two worlds is limited to that which is
> > necessary for us to observe the results that we do.
>
> No, its not correct.

Is it all wrong or only some of it. I am trying to understand your theory.

>
>
> There is the GET ether, which is described by variables like density,
> velocity, pressure we know from condensed matter theory, and other
> "material properties". We know such other material properties from
> condensed matter theory to, they are different for different
> materials.
>

In GET which of the above properties can be measured?

>
> The common universal properties (density, velocity, pressure) describe
> gravity (the universal interaction).

Are you saying here that the aether interacts with normal matter in just the
same way as other normal matter would?

Martin Hogbin

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Aug 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/1/00

Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> writes:
>>> There is the world of matter as we know it, complete with its laws of
>>> physics.
>>>
>>> There is the world of aether, which internally has its own laws of physics
>>> which are similar to those that apply to condensed matter.
>>>
>>> The interaction between these two worlds is limited to that which is
>>> necessary for us to observe the results that we do.
>>
>> No, its not correct.
>
> Is it all wrong or only some of it.

What is wrong is the separation between the world of matter and the
ether. There is only one thing in the world - the ether. And all the
matter fields we know are fields which describe this universal ether.

>> There is the GET ether, which is described by variables like density,
>> velocity, pressure we know from condensed matter theory, and other
>> "material properties". We know such other material properties from
>> condensed matter theory to, they are different for different
>> materials.

> In GET which of the above properties can be measured?

That's hard to explain. We cannot distinguish some really different
states of the ether.

If you know Einstein's hole problem, this will be helpful. Two states
of the gravitational field g_ij(x), they differ inside a hole, and
their only difference is obtained by a diffeomorphism. Nonetheless,
the functions g_ij(x) look completely different as functions of x.

Now, in GET, in the preferred coordinates above states are really
different, nonetheless cannot be distinguished by observation.

>> The common universal properties (density, velocity, pressure) describe
>> gravity (the universal interaction).

> Are you saying here that the aether interacts with normal matter in
> just the same way as other normal matter would?

Hm.

There is no such animal as "interaction of the ether with normal
matter", because "normal matter" is simply a property of the ether.

The interaction of gravity with normal matter is like the interaction
of ether density with ether color, or something like this.

On the other hand, the equations of GET are almost the same as the GR
equations.

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Aug 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/3/00

>
>
> What is wrong is the separation between the world of matter and the
> ether. There is only one thing in the world - the ether. And all the
> matter fields we know are fields which describe this universal ether.
>

Right, I think I understand you now. You are saying that everything that we
measure is the aether. I am going to have to think about this.

Martin Hogbin

alan

unread,

Aug 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/4/00

Ilja Schmelzer said:

> There is the GET ether, which is described by variables like density,
> velocity, pressure we know from condensed matter theory, and other
> "material properties". We know such other material properties from
> condensed matter theory to, they are different for different
> materials.
>

> The common universal properties (density, velocity, pressure) describe

> gravity (the universal interaction). The other material properties
> describe the other fields (gauge fields, fermion fields).

OK, in condensed matter, in addition to electrons and nuclei, there are
other excitations which give particle-like fields -- phonons, plasmons,
polarons, magnons, etc. So, are you saying that things like electrons are
excitations of the GET ether? If so, is this GET ether solid, liquid, gas,
or something else?

Jones

unread,

Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00

GLOBARR <glo...@aol.com> wrote:

: You, an educated person, want me to tell you what a hundred

: year old theory says about clocks???? Anyone can take what is
: called a light clock, that consists of two parallel mirrors with
: a light pulse bouncing back and forth between these two mirrors.
: In the ether, where the speed of the light is an absolute
: constant c, the ticks of this clock can be considered to be the
: bounce of each pulse off the mirrors. If the mirrors are
: arranged so that their velocity vector lies in the plane of the
: mirrors, the rate of this clock will automatically be:
: SQRT(1-vv/cc).
: And this is the exact rate that is desired.

This explanation is not much different from the SR explanation for the
slowing of the light clock. At this point SR and LET agree.

: Now as to your question, does the ether explains clock

: slowing???? There are different degrees to which this is done.
: As far as I am concerned, the ether explains the rate of a light
: clock perfectly and completely. At this point, one only has to
: add one small assumption: all clocks react the same way! And
: there are many ways in which one could assume that such an
: assumption would be reasonable and possible.

One possible way is that the geometry of spacetime is such that any clock
which follows the same path as the light clock will be affected in the
same way. An analogy may be helpful:

Suppose I have a sphere and decide to draw a path on the surface of the
sphere. I take careful pains not to allow the path to bend with respect
to the surface; allowing a little math to intrude here (I know how much
globarr hates math theories, but nevertheless), I require that the vector
derivative of the path always points normal to the surface as I draw.

Now if I don't know much about spherical geometry, I might be shocked to
find that a path drawn in this way will always:

(1) arrive back at its starting point, and
(2) produce the same length (the circumference of the
sphere determines the length of the path).

The explanation for this lies in geometry, even though the experiment as
described involves the physical act of drawing the path.

It may seem curious to look for a physical explanation for results (1) and
(2); the question may be phrased "Yes, it works when I draw the line with
a pencil, but does it work when I use a crayon? And what if the sphere is
made of a different material?" A _physical_ explanation for results (1)
and (2) would have to answer these questions to be viable, a _geometric_
explanation does not. One way out of it is to postulate, as globarr does,
"one small assumption" that all writing implements and spherical material
surfaces react in the same way.

: Now theoretically, the ether tells us why clocks slow down.

: The ether does it! And the ether tells us what function
: governs it. Its absolute velocity! And it tells us the
: function.

Again, the theory deals only with light clocks; by rejecting a geometric
interpretation, you must ad hoc assume the physical cause affects all
materials in all states identically. There is nothing wrong with
this--Newton did essentially the same thing when he postulated his law of
gravitation--but realize it is a defect of the theory.

: So in theory, the ether theory most certainly tells

: us why clocks slow down. Does it tells us everything????
: Absolutely not. It does not tell us why any of these things are
: true. But this does not mean that it didn't tell us what does
: it, and by what variable, and by what function. Therefore, what
: would you want to change in what I said????

I have a feeling (with nothing other than skeptical suspicion to support
it) that ether theory is incapable of predicting anything new; it merely
builds new assumptions into the theory when a new conclusion of SR is
reached. Therefore it's not much of a theory, and can rightly be
dismissed until these serious defects (physical interaction without
explanation, lack of new conclusions) can be resolved

GLOBARR

unread,

Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00

In <iQYl5.968$J.2...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

Ref: <39685361...@hogbin.org.uk>
<20000710135121...@ng-bj1.aol.com>

>
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote: . . .

: You, an educated person, want me to tell you what a hundred
: year old theory says about clocks???? Anyone can take what
: is called a light clock, that consists of two parallel
: mirrors with a light pulse bouncing back and forth between
: these two mirrors. In the ether, where the speed of the
: light is an absolute constant c, the ticks of this clock can
: be considered to be the bounce of each pulse off the mirrors.
: If the mirrors are arranged so that their velocity vector
: lies in the plane of the mirrors, the rate of this clock will
: automatically be: SQRT(1-vv/cc).
: And this is the exact rate that is desired.

Jones wrote:
This explanation is not much different from the SR
explanation for the slowing of the light clock. At this point
SR and LET agree.

O'Barr comments:
In truth, SR and the correct ether theory are the same
theory. Thus in every way, they would have to really agree on
every real fact that exists! And they certainly agree here!

O'Barr wrote:
: Now as to your question, does the ether explains clock
: slowing???? There are different degrees to which this is
: done. As far as I am concerned, the ether explains the rate
: of a light clock perfectly and completely. At this point,
: one only has to add one small assumption: all clocks react
: the same way! And there are many ways in which one could
: assume that such an assumption would be reasonable and
: possible.

Jones wrote:
One possible way is that the geometry of spacetime is such that
any clock which follows the same path as the light clock will

be affected in the same way. . . .

O'Barr comments:
You are absolutely correct. In SR, you assume that all
clocks are affected by the `geometry of spacetime' exactly
alike! And if you have a brain, you will see that this
assumption is no more or no less than assuming that all clocks
are affected by the ether in the same way. There are no more
or less assumptions being made in SR than in the ether. They
each require certain assumptions for every type of clock that
we can find, as we now know clocks to exist today, and for any
that will be found in the future!

Jones wrote:
An analogy may be helpful:
Suppose I have a sphere and decide to draw a path on the
surface of the sphere. I take careful pains not to allow the
path to bend with respect to the surface; allowing a little
math to intrude here (I know how much globarr hates math
theories, but nevertheless), I require that the vector
derivative of the path always points normal to the surface as I
draw.

O'Barr comments:
First of all, trying to fall back onto an analogy is simply
admitting your defeat! Why not be direct and state the simple
facts? And second, I do not hate math theories! Many times
they are the best we have!!!!! But if we have both, certainly
we can all agree as to which is best!!!!!

Jones continues:

Now if I don't know much about spherical geometry, I might
be shocked to find that a path drawn in this way will always:
(1) arrive back at its starting point, and
(2) produce the same length (the circumference of the
sphere determines the length of the path).
The explanation for this lies in geometry, even though the
experiment as described involves the physical act of drawing
the path.

O'Barr comments:
What a sad way to see it, that the explanation lies in the
math. The physical facts govern. The math is only doing
correctly what the physical facts present to us! The math
correctly mimics what physically exists! How sad you are not
able to see all this! It is so simple and obvious!

Jones continues:

It may seem curious to look for a physical explanation for
results (1) and (2); the question may be phrased "Yes, it works
when I draw the line with a pencil, but does it work when I use
a crayon? And what if the sphere is made of a different
material?" A _physical_ explanation for results (1) and (2)
would have to answer these questions to be viable, a
_geometric_ explanation does not.

O'Barr comments:
What is really curious is that you seem to have `reasons' to
try to make out of the math more than what is necessary. The
math cannot consider many things because the math is weak and
can only mimic. This `weakness' of the math does not make the
math superior! The physical is the origin of the original
truth, and being what is real, can address all the issues. All
of the issues you mentioned, and more! In fact, all issues
that are necessary can be addressed when you deal with the
physical. And this is why it is superior.

Jones continues:

One way out of it is to postulate, as globarr does, "one
small assumption" that all writing implements and spherical
material surfaces react in the same way.

O'Barr comments:
And this `one small assumption' (getting back to the ether)
is exactly the same as your one small math assumption that all
objects follow the same geometric math path. And you assume
this without knowing what a `geometric math path' really is.
Why you do not even know why one particle would follow it, let
alone all!!!! To the best of my knowledge, we have never seen
a reason for any physical object to follow a math path at any
time. Your position is that of Voodoo. Nothing more and
nothing less! Unless you have physical reasons for physical
objects to follow the path you require, you only have math, and
that is not enough!!!!!!

O'Barr wrote:
: Now theoretically, the ether tells us why clocks slow down.
: The ether does it! And the ether tells us what function
: governs it. Its absolute velocity! And it tells us the
: function.

Jones wrote:
Again, the theory deals only with light clocks; by rejecting a
geometric interpretation, you must ad hoc assume the physical
cause affects all materials in all states identically. There
is nothing wrong with this--Newton did essentially the same
thing when he postulated his law of gravitation--but realize it
is a defect of the theory.

O'Barr comments:
Yes! Newton was a smart individual! He knew that his
gravity theory was only math, and therefore, there was no
physical base to the math. He therefore knew that there were
many short-comings to what he had! And in the exact same way,
SR is only math. And any smart person would know that there
has to be many short-comings to SR. It cannot provide us
physical explanations, no physical causes and effects, no

physical limits to the math.

And SR experts who will not even discuss these things are
showing themselves to be unscientific. They have formed a
religion that can no longer be criticized!

O'Barr wrote:
: So in theory, the ether theory most certainly tells
: us why clocks slow down. Does it tells us everything????
: Absolutely not. It does not tell us why any of these things
: are true. But this does not mean that it didn't tell us what
: does it, and by what variable, and by what function.
: Therefore, what would you want to change in what I said????

Jones wrote:
I have a feeling (with nothing other than skeptical suspicion
to support it) that ether theory is incapable of predicting
anything new; it merely builds new assumptions into the theory
when a new conclusion of SR is reached. Therefore it's not
much of a theory, and can rightly be dismissed until these
serious defects (physical interaction without explanation, lack
of new conclusions) can be resolved

O'Barr comments:
One of the benefits of a physical theory is that it is
always clear as to its boundaries! All physical theories tell
us what is missing, and what we need to know more about! The
ether theory does this very clearly. And this is another way
in which it is superior to SR.
What you see, that we need more, is the very reason why the
ether is superior. We do need more!!!! And the ether tells us
where to look for more! At the same time, you have to also be
honest, and see and understand that the ether does provide to
us more than what SR provides.
The ether does provide to us the complete SR theory. It
does everything that SR does. It provides to us the complete
math predictions as SR. But it does not stop here. The ether
goes on to provide us more than what we get in SR. We have
physical limits to the math, the exact limits that we
experience! We get physical causes and effects. We get
simpler physics, simpler velocity additions, simpler physical
explanations. And as we see all this, it becomes impossible to
not accept the ether as the superior approach!

Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!

(We need to improve the SR FAQ)

Jones

unread,

Aug 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/17/00

GLOBARR <glo...@aol.com> wrote:

: O'Barr comments:

: In truth, SR and the correct ether theory are the same
: theory. Thus in every way, they would have to really agree on
: every real fact that exists! And they certainly agree here!

To be clear, then, the difference between SR and LET is an explanation of
causes behind the effects that the math implies. We are talking about the
same results, but using different systems to predict them from different
fundamental causes.

: any clock which follows the same path as the light clock will

: be affected in the same way. . . .

: O'Barr comments:
: You are absolutely correct. In SR, you assume that all
: clocks are affected by the `geometry of spacetime' exactly
: alike! And if you have a brain, you will see that this
: assumption is no more or no less than assuming that all clocks
: are affected by the ether in the same way. There are no more
: or less assumptions being made in SR than in the ether. They
: each require certain assumptions for every type of clock that
: we can find, as we now know clocks to exist today, and for any
: that will be found in the future!

This is demonstrably false, and was the whole point of the analogy. In
SR, the mechanism used for timekeeping has nothing at all to do with time
dilation, just as the type of pencil/pen/crayon used in the sphere analogy
has nothing to do with the results of that experiment. All SR says is if
the clocks follow the same spacetime path, they will behave in exactly
the same manner. By "spacetime path" I mean we have a means (a graph of
position versus time, an agreed-upon mathematical function, even a
description like "due south from point A at a constant 90 mph" would do)
for determining the position of the clock at any time. I apologize that
this was not made clearer.

: Jones wrote:
: An analogy may be helpful:

: O'Barr comments:

: First of all, trying to fall back onto an analogy is simply
: admitting your defeat!

This statement is difficult for me to understand. Analogies are a common
method for elucidating a subtle truth, if they are not pressed too hard.
In this particular case, it was used to show some of the difficulties with
offering a physical explanation for the phenomenon of clocks slowing as
they move thru the ether.

I am asserting that the ether theory cannot explain why different clocking
mechanisms are affected by a physical cause in exactly the same way. It
is rare that a presumed physical cause affects all physical objects the
same way (e.g. not all objects can be magnetized, not all objects float in
water). Gravity in Newton's day is the grand exception, and was even
recognized as such by his contemporaries.

To be honest, one must admit this is a serious defect of the ether theory.

: Jones continues:

: Now if I don't know much about spherical geometry, I might
: be shocked to find that a path drawn in this way will always:
: (1) arrive back at its starting point, and
: (2) produce the same length (the circumference of the
: sphere determines the length of the path).
: The explanation for this lies in geometry, even though the
: experiment as described involves the physical act of drawing
: the path.

: O'Barr comments:
: What a sad way to see it, that the explanation lies in the
: math. The physical facts govern. The math is only doing
: correctly what the physical facts present to us! The math
: correctly mimics what physically exists! How sad you are not
: able to see all this! It is so simple and obvious!

Facts govern nothing; they simply exist. I assume you mean that the
results of the experiment must dictate the explanation. While this is
certainly true, it is also only part of the scientific method; another
part is the theory's ability to predict the outcome of experiments. By
appealing to geometry, we predict that if the experiment is run under the
same geometric conditions, the results are as shown. By appealing to a
physical cause (e.g. the type of writing implement used, the material used
for the sphere), we are forced to re-run the experiment every time we come
across a new physical situation. The predicting power of such a theory,
then, is sharply limited. Such, I think, is the case with ether theory, a
point which stands as another defect.

On a personal note, while I appreciate your sympathy for my assumed sad
state, it really is unnecessary, and only detracts from the discussion.
Kindly avoid such rants in any future posts.

: Jones continues:

: It may seem curious to look for a physical explanation for
: results (1) and (2); the question may be phrased "Yes, it works
: when I draw the line with a pencil, but does it work when I use
: a crayon? And what if the sphere is made of a different
: material?" A _physical_ explanation for results (1) and (2)
: would have to answer these questions to be viable, a
: _geometric_ explanation does not.

: O'Barr comments:
: What is really curious is that you seem to have `reasons' to
: try to make out of the math more than what is necessary. The
: math cannot consider many things because the math is weak and
: can only mimic. This `weakness' of the math does not make the
: math superior! The physical is the origin of the original
: truth, and being what is real, can address all the issues. All
: of the issues you mentioned, and more! In fact, all issues
: that are necessary can be addressed when you deal with the
: physical. And this is why it is superior.

I see this as a circular argument. A mathematical model is by definition
a mimic of reality--that is, I believe, why they call it a model. But
that can be said of any model. Unless you're arguing to eschew
all possible models of reality--in which case we have nothing to
talk about--bemoaning the fact that a mathematical model only mimics
reality is pointless because no model can do any better.

It is always good advice to point out that a model must be tested against
reality. For example, high school algebra books are filled with story
problems that (when modeled by, say, a quadratic equation with a negative
root) can lead to silly conclusions. The key here, however, is that the
results are _tested_ against reality, a test that SR has passed. LET, on
the other hand, seems to avoid questions it doesn't want to answer.

: Jones continues:

: One way out of it is to postulate, as globarr does, "one
: small assumption" that all writing implements and spherical
: material surfaces react in the same way.

: O'Barr comments:
: And this `one small assumption' (getting back to the ether)
: is exactly the same as your one small math assumption that all
: objects follow the same geometric math path. And you assume
: this without knowing what a `geometric math path' really is.
: Why you do not even know why one particle would follow it, let
: alone all!!!! To the best of my knowledge, we have never seen
: a reason for any physical object to follow a math path at any
: time. Your position is that of Voodoo. Nothing more and
: nothing less! Unless you have physical reasons for physical
: objects to follow the path you require, you only have math, and
: that is not enough!!!!!!

"Geometric math path" is your term, not mine. I can hardly believe
this, but I think you're asking me how I know an object follows the path I
assume it follows. Again, this is part of a model which is used to
predict things that can be verified; the proof of the pudding is in the
eating, so to speak. I don't know if my assumptions are true, but if they
lead to verified conclusions, that gives me a strong measure of
confidence.

Of course, two conflicting sets of assumptions can lead to the same
conclusions. To choose between the two, one has to either (1) find an
experiment for which the two sets predict different outcomes, or (2)
decide based on the "reasonableness" of the assumptions. (1) is ALWAYS
the preferred way of deciding, and (2) can only be employed if there is no
experiment to "break the tie".

As you have stated repeatedly, LET and SR predict exactly the same
conclusions. I doubt this is really true--we either haven't found the
tiebreaking experiment yet, or the proponents of LET refuse to be pinned
down in this way--but if it is we must fall back on the "reasonableness"
decision. I have listed my reasons for doubting the physical mechanism of
an ether to explain the results, but I don't think you realize how
critical they are. Between you and me, they are most certainly the reason
why LET is rejected by the scientific community, not any desire to adhere
to some presumed SR dogma.

: O'Barr wrote:
: : Now theoretically, the ether tells us why clocks slow down.
: : The ether does it! And the ether tells us what function
: : governs it. Its absolute velocity! And it tells us the
: : function.

: O'Barr comments:
: ...SR is only math. And any smart person would know that there

: has to be many short-comings to SR. It cannot provide us
: physical explanations, no physical causes and effects, no
: physical limits to the math.
: And SR experts who will not even discuss these things are
: showing themselves to be unscientific. They have formed a
: religion that can no longer be criticized!

The rigors of the scientific method are well-known. If I understand your
position, a lack of physical explanation is the key reason to
declare SR inferior. Consequentially, we should take all the results as
derived by "SR math" and simply say they are all caused by a physical
mechanism. Again, I question whether any physical mechanism--even LET,
which like the backup quarterback on a losing NFL team, is touted as a
superstar until it starts actually getting used in the game--could produce
the same results as SR without being a blunderbus of ad hoc assumptions,
questionable interpretations, and internal contradiction.

In the novel 1984, party member O'Brien tries to convince the fallen-away
Winston Smith that man is the center of the universe, even to the point of
claiming the sun revolves around the earth and that the stars are only
fires buring a few miles up in the air: "We could reach them if we wanted
to". When Smith objects, O'Brien counters "Of course, for the sake of
navigation and the calculation of eclipses, it is sometimes convenient to
assume the stars are millions of miles away, and that the earth revolves
about the sun. But don't you think we could come up with a new system of
astronomy that fixes that?" While the ether proponents spend a lot of
time claiming their ideas are dismissed because the mantra of SR is so
strong that it can be called a religion, in my opinion there will need
to be some serious doublethink necessary to make the LET position tenable.

GLOBARR

unread,

Aug 17, 2000, 9:40:40 PM8/17/00

In <KTXm5.23620$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

Ref: <iQYl5.968$J.2...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
<20000815174646...@ng-fz1.aol.com>

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:

: In truth, SR and the correct ether theory are the same
: theory. Thus in every way, they would have to really agree :
on every real fact that exists! And they certainly agree :
here!

Jones wrote:
To be clear, then, the difference between SR and LET is an
explanation of causes behind the effects that the math implies.
We are talking about the same results, but using different
systems to predict them from different fundamental causes.

O'Barr comments:
Well not exactly. The ether gives physical causes to what
happens. SR does not have physical cause. In fact, SR cannot
even tell us what really physically happens. Such words as
these make no sense in SR. They do not make sense in SR
because SR is not a physical theory. One goes with the other.

:
: O'Barr comments:
: . . . In SR, you assume that all

: clocks are affected by the `geometry of spacetime' exactly
: alike! And if you have a brain, you will see that this
: assumption is no more or no less than assuming that all
: clocks are affected by the ether in the same way. There are
: no more or less assumptions being made in SR than in the
: ether. They each require certain assumptions for every type
: of clock that we can find, as we now know clocks to exist
: today, and for any that will be found in the future!

Jones wrote:
This is demonstrably false, and was the whole point of the
analogy. In SR, the mechanism used for timekeeping has nothing
at all to do with time dilation, just as the type of
pencil/pen/crayon used in the sphere analogy has nothing to do
with the results of that experiment. All SR says is if the
clocks follow the same spacetime path, they will behave in
exactly the same manner. By "spacetime path" I mean we have a
means (a graph of position versus time, an agreed-upon
mathematical function, even a description like "due south from
point A at a constant 90 mph" would do) for determining the
position of the clock at any time. I apologize that this was
not made clearer.

O'Barr comments:
Oh, it is very clear. You do have a math that says all
this! And what is also clear, in all this math, there are no
physical answers or physical explanations or physical reasons
why any of this happens!

: Jones wrote:
: An analogy may be helpful:

: O'Barr comments:
: First of all, trying to fall back onto an analogy is
: simply admitting your defeat!

Jones wrote:
This statement is difficult for me to understand. Analogies
are a common method for elucidating a subtle truth, if they are
not pressed too hard. In this particular case, it was used to
show some of the difficulties with offering a physical
explanation for the phenomenon of clocks slowing as they move
thru the ether.

O'Barr comments:
If not pressed too hard???? This is exactly what I mean.
Analogies, by definition, are not the same! If you cannot
directly explain it, then why the analogy? You do have
difficulty in presenting physical explanations for anything,
because SR is not a physical theory!!!!!!!!

Jones wrote:
I am asserting that the ether theory cannot explain why
different clocking mechanisms are affected by a physical cause
in exactly the same way. It is rare that a presumed physical
cause affects all physical objects the same way (e.g. not all
objects can be magnetized, not all objects float in water).
Gravity in Newton's day is the grand exception, and was even
recognized as such by his contemporaries.
To be honest, one must admit this is a serious defect of the
ether theory.

O'Barr comments:
It can be a defect only if the theory requires us to know.
In other words, if the theory said that we should know this,
and then you prove that we do not know this, then the theory
could be said to be defective. But the theory, at no point,
ever says or demands us to know this! You are being
unscientific. You are showing your own prejudices. For
example, SR theory does not tell us how to bake a good
apple pie. Is this a defect? Why not reject SR because it
does not tell us how to bake an apple pie? It would make just
as much sense!

: Jones continues:
: Now if I don't know much about spherical geometry, I might
: be shocked to find that a path drawn in this way will always:
: (1) arrive back at its starting point, and
: (2) produce the same length (the circumference of the
: sphere determines the length of the path).
: The explanation for this lies in geometry, even though the
: experiment as described involves the physical act of drawing
: the path.

: O'Barr comments:
: What a sad way to see it, that the explanation lies in the
: math. The physical facts govern. The math is only doing
: correctly what the physical facts present to us! The math
: correctly mimics what physically exists! How sad you are
: not able to see all this! It is so simple and obvious!

Jones continues:

Facts govern nothing; they simply exist. I assume you mean
that the results of the experiment must dictate the
explanation. While this is certainly true, it is also only
part of the scientific method; another part is the theory's
ability to predict the outcome of experiments. By appealing to
geometry, we predict that if the experiment is run under the
same geometric conditions, the results are as shown. By
appealing to a physical cause (e.g. the type of writing
implement used, the material used for the sphere), we are
forced to re-run the experiment every time we come across a new
physical situation. The predicting power of such a theory,
then, is sharply limited. Such, I think, is the case with
ether theory, a point which stands as another defect.

O'Barr comments:
Thank you for making the most of my comments. I did mean to
say that the physical reality governs. And unless every
physical `crayon' used results in some specified results, the
power of the math to say the same thing is useless. It is the
physical that governs, not the math! It does not matter if the
math is more easy. It does not matter is the math is more
general. What matters is what reality does. And reality
controls the correctness of the math, not the reverse!

Jones continues:

On a personal note, while I appreciate your sympathy for my
assumed sad state, it really is unnecessary, and only detracts
from the discussion. Kindly avoid such rants in any future
posts.

: Jones continues:
: It may seem curious to look for a physical explanation for
: results (1) and (2); the question may be phrased "Yes, it
: works when I draw the line with a pencil, but does it work
: when I use a crayon? And what if the sphere is made of a
: different material?" A _physical_ explanation for results

: (1) and (2)would have to answer these questions to be viable,

: a _geometric_ explanation does not.

: O'Barr comments:
: What is really curious is that you seem to have `reasons' to
: try to make out of the math more than what is necessary. The
: math cannot consider many things because the math is weak and
: can only mimic. This `weakness' of the math does not make
: the math superior! The physical is the origin of the
: original truth, and being what is real, can address all the
: issues. All of the issues you mentioned, and more! In
: fact, all issues that are necessary can be addressed when you
: deal with the physical. And this is why it is superior.

Jones wrote:
I see this as a circular argument. A mathematical model is by
definition a mimic of reality--that is, I believe, why they
call it a model. But that can be said of any model. Unless
you're arguing to eschew all possible models of reality--in
which case we have nothing to talk about--bemoaning the fact
that a mathematical model only mimics reality is pointless
because no model can do any better.

O'Barr comments:
But not all models are equal! Some models are only math
models, based only upon made-up assumptions. Some models are
physical models, and by being physical, have limitations. They
limit and define the math. They are physically doable, and
physically possible, and logical and understandable. Although
some math models are simple, many math models are not
physically realistic, or doable, or physically explainable.
And so we should be sensitive to the models being used, and
which are the best. And those models that are the most
realistic, and doable, and at the deepest level, should
normally be preferred!

Jones wrote:
It is always good advice to point out that a model must be
tested against reality. For example, high school algebra books
are filled with story problems that (when modeled by, say, a
quadratic equation with a negative root) can lead to silly
conclusions. The key here, however, is that the results are
_tested_ against reality, a test that SR has passed. LET, on
the other hand, seems to avoid questions it doesn't want to
answer.

O'Barr comments:
Since LET makes all of the same math predictions as SR, then
LET is the most well proved physical theory that has ever
existed! It is only personal prejudices that allows such
thinking as you have just expressed! And the unscientific SR
FAQ allows such muddy thinking to continue on this net. It is
time that we stop all this silly thinking, and begin to be more
scientific! Let is superior, and it does not have anything to
answer for, to you or to anyone else!

: Jones continues:
: One way out of it is to postulate, as globarr does, "one
: small assumption" that all writing implements and spherical
: material surfaces react in the same way.

: O'Barr comments:
: And this `one small assumption' (getting back to the ether)
: is exactly the same as your one small math assumption that
: all objects follow the same geometric math path. And you
: assume this without knowing what a `geometric math path'
: really is. Why you do not even know why one particle would
: follow it, let alone all!!!! To the best of my knowledge, we
: have never seen a reason for any physical object to follow a
: math path at any time. Your position is that of Voodoo.
: Nothing more and nothing less! Unless you have physical
: reasons for physical objects to follow the path you require,
: you only have math, and that is not enough!!!!!!

Jones wrote:
"Geometric math path" is your term, not mine. I can hardly
believe this, but I think you're asking me how I know an object
follows the path I assume it follows. Again, this is part of a
model which is used to predict things that can be verified; the
proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak. I don't
know if my assumptions are true, but if they lead to verified
conclusions, that gives me a strong measure of confidence.

O'Barr comments:
The problem is that the math is mathematically opened to
more than one interpretation. And thus you cannot
mathematically or scientifically say what you say! You are
being a fool! And the ether is what makes you a fool!!!! The
ether math is identical to SR math, and it proves that you have
no right to scientifically demand your interpretation! It
proves that you are only making a personal choice, not a
scientific choice! And until you get this right, you are a
loser!!!!!!!

Jones wrote:
Of course, two conflicting sets of assumptions can lead to
the same conclusions. To choose between the two, one has to
either (1) find an experiment for which the two sets predict
different outcomes, or (2) decide based on the "reasonableness"
of the assumptions. (1) is ALWAYS the preferred way of
deciding, and (2) can only be employed if there is no
experiment to "break the tie".
As you have stated repeatedly, LET and SR predict exactly
the same conclusions. I doubt this is really true--we either
haven't found the tiebreaking experiment yet, or the proponents
of LET refuse to be pinned down in this way--but if it is we
must fall back on the "reasonableness" decision. I have listed
my reasons for doubting the physical mechanism of an ether to
explain the results, but I don't think you realize how critical
they are. Between you and me, they are most certainly the
reason why LET is rejected by the scientific community, not any
desire to adhere to some presumed SR dogma.

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
And what a nice restatement of the situation. And in any
scientific presentation (such as what the SR FAQ should be),
such an understanding as given by you would be a minimum. And
if you were to really be scientific, you would point out the
different advantages of each approach. And this would
certainly include many advantages for the ether approach over
SR. And you would then give the specific reason why one or the
other choice was made. You would not do what most SR text
books do, where the ether is not even mentioned!

: O'Barr comments:
:..SR is only math. And any smart person would know that there

Jones wrote:
The rigors of the scientific method are well-known. If I
understand your position, a lack of physical explanation is the
key reason to declare SR inferior. Consequentially, we should
take all the results as derived by "SR math" and simply say
they are all caused by a physical mechanism. Again, I question
whether any physical mechanism--even LET, which like the backup
quarterback on a losing NFL team, is touted as a superstar
until it starts actually getting used in the game--could
produce the same results as SR without being a blunderbus of ad
hoc assumptions, questionable interpretations, and internal
contradiction.

. . . While the ether proponents spend a lot of time

claiming their ideas are dismissed because the mantra of SR is
so strong that it can be called a religion, in my opinion there
will need to be some serious doublethink necessary to make the
LET position tenable.

O'Barr comments:
The ether does a lot more than just declare that everything
has a physical cause. It locates the physical cause. It gives
proximity to the effects. It describes every effect exactly
and perfectly. There are no internal inconsistencies.
Now your thoughts above are very strange. They are not
scientific. There are no known flaws in LET. There are no
known internal contradictions. If there is any doublethink
that is necessary, it is with SR. You are the ones who have
maintained things to be true that are not true. You are the
ones who wrote the SR FAQ, not any ether person. You are the
ones who have written all the school text books, not me!
And if anyone thinks that I have only one reason to accept
the ether theory, you better reread what is said. It is more
close to the fact that in every way, the ether is superior.
All you have to do is to start to think! And it is time that
we start to think!!!!!

Jones

unread,

Aug 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/18/00

GLOBARR <glo...@aol.com> wrote:

: Jones wrote:
: To be clear, then, the difference between SR and LET is an
: explanation of causes behind the effects that the math implies.
: We are talking about the same results, but using different
: systems to predict them from different fundamental causes.

: O'Barr comments:
: Well not exactly. The ether gives physical causes to what
: happens. SR does not have physical cause. In fact, SR cannot
: even tell us what really physically happens. Such words as
: these make no sense in SR. They do not make sense in SR
: because SR is not a physical theory. One goes with the other.

Note I said _fundamental_ cause, not physical cause. You may reject the
idea that there can be a cause other than strict physical interaction, but
I and many rational people (Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hume) do not. As
this point is clearly a matter of scientific philosophy, rather than a
discussion about relativity, you may benefit from reading some of these
eminent philosophers, particularly Aristotle's Metaphysics, and not have
to worry about any SR bias that may color their arguments against strict
physical cause.

: Jones wrote:
: ... Analogies

: are a common method for elucidating a subtle truth, if they are
: not pressed too hard. In this particular case, it was used to
: show some of the difficulties with offering a physical
: explanation for the phenomenon of clocks slowing as they move
: thru the ether.

: O'Barr comments:
: If not pressed too hard???? This is exactly what I mean.
: Analogies, by definition, are not the same! If you cannot
: directly explain it, then why the analogy? You do have
: difficulty in presenting physical explanations for anything,
: because SR is not a physical theory!!!!!!!!

An explanation is also not the same as the action it describes. For that
matter, this argument can be made against using any item which describes
reality: speech, writing, even thought. As I stated previously, if you
are arguing against the use of any model, then we have nothing to discuss.

: Jones wrote:
: I am asserting that the ether theory cannot explain why
: different clocking mechanisms are affected by a physical cause
: in exactly the same way. It is rare that a presumed physical
: cause affects all physical objects the same way (e.g. not all
: objects can be magnetized, not all objects float in water).
: Gravity in Newton's day is the grand exception, and was even
: recognized as such by his contemporaries.
: To be honest, one must admit this is a serious defect of the
: ether theory.

: O'Barr comments:
: It can be a defect only if the theory requires us to know.
: In other words, if the theory said that we should know this,
: and then you prove that we do not know this, then the theory
: could be said to be defective. But the theory, at no point,
: ever says or demands us to know this! You are being
: unscientific. You are showing your own prejudices. For
: example, SR theory does not tell us how to bake a good
: apple pie. Is this a defect? Why not reject SR because it
: does not tell us how to bake an apple pie? It would make just
: as much sense!

True, SR does not explain how to bake an apple pie. Therefore SR is
defective as a kitchen cookbook; I think any "SR expert" would agree you
don't go searching thru Einstein's papers for recipies. However, this is
not a defect relevant to its use as a theory of physics, and I certainly
wouldn't criticize LET for its inability to bake.

This is not the same, however, as a defect in the objective of the model.
LET claims to be a physical theory, yet it cannot provide an explanation
why the physical interaction at the core of the theory doesn't behave like
any other known physical interaction.

The first question anyone will ask when presented with LET is "What is the
ether?" If it is described as a physical medium, yet fails to act like
one, that is going to lead to more embarassing questions. This is in
part why Lorentz ultimately rejected the theory. And in
fairness, SR has been asked similar questions and answered them--granted,
by throwing out any physical cause they have come up with an answer you do
not accept, but at least SR has answered it with self-consistency, a far
better record than LET.

: Jones continues:

: Facts govern nothing; they simply exist. I assume you mean
: that the results of the experiment must dictate the
: explanation. While this is certainly true, it is also only
: part of the scientific method; another part is the theory's
: ability to predict the outcome of experiments. By appealing to
: geometry, we predict that if the experiment is run under the
: same geometric conditions, the results are as shown. By
: appealing to a physical cause (e.g. the type of writing
: implement used, the material used for the sphere), we are
: forced to re-run the experiment every time we come across a new
: physical situation. The predicting power of such a theory,
: then, is sharply limited. Such, I think, is the case with
: ether theory, a point which stands as another defect.

: O'Barr comments:
: Thank you for making the most of my comments. I did mean to
: say that the physical reality governs. And unless every
: physical `crayon' used results in some specified results, the
: power of the math to say the same thing is useless. It is the
: physical that governs, not the math! It does not matter if the
: math is more easy. It does not matter is the math is more
: general. What matters is what reality does. And reality
: controls the correctness of the math, not the reverse!

Again, no one is arguing that math dictates reality; all results must be
proved in the courtroom of experiment. The mathematics used in any theory
are helpful in predicting results. This is the point of a model. Again,
if you are arguing that models are useless because they are not reality,
we have nothing to talk about.

: Jones wrote:
: I see this as a circular argument. A mathematical model is by
: definition a mimic of reality--that is, I believe, why they
: call it a model. But that can be said of any model. Unless
: you're arguing to eschew all possible models of reality--in
: which case we have nothing to talk about--bemoaning the fact
: that a mathematical model only mimics reality is pointless
: because no model can do any better.

: O'Barr comments:
: But not all models are equal! Some models are only math
: models, based only upon made-up assumptions. Some models are
: physical models, and by being physical, have limitations. They
: limit and define the math. They are physically doable, and
: physically possible, and logical and understandable. Although
: some math models are simple, many math models are not
: physically realistic, or doable, or physically explainable.
: And so we should be sensitive to the models being used, and
: which are the best. And those models that are the most
: realistic, and doable, and at the deepest level, should
: normally be preferred!

You appear to be arguing here that in any model, if the assumptions are
"physical" rather than "conceptual" (I assume this is what you mean by
"made-up", not that they contradict reality but that they are a product of
the human mind), the model using "physical" assumptions is superior.

This view, to put it kindly, is flawed. First of all, the only reason to
assert the superiority of "physical" assumptions is to satisfy a
small-minded prejudice toward what can be seen. I have never traveled to
China, but I can still conceptualize it given the information I read in
magazines, see on television, or hear from people who claim to have
visited there. While I'm sure I'd enjoy a visit to China, I don't
need to go there to believe that it exists. Second, relying on this
underlying assumption opens the door to the use of "common sense" as a
determinative truth. You may see this as a plus, but as any scientist
will tell you, common sense is not always a reliable guide; modern quantum
mechanics is the proof of that. Finally, while you disregard the
simplicity and ease of application in SR as "only a math theory", you tout
this same simplicity and understandability as a reason to adopt a theory
based on "physical" assumptions. While you accuse others of being too
biased toward SR to accept or even discuss LET, your own bias is clear in
such contracdictions; you should consider avoiding them in the future.

: Jones wrote:
: It is always good advice to point out that a model must be
: tested against reality. For example, high school algebra books
: are filled with story problems that (when modeled by, say, a
: quadratic equation with a negative root) can lead to silly
: conclusions. The key here, however, is that the results are
: _tested_ against reality, a test that SR has passed. LET, on
: the other hand, seems to avoid questions it doesn't want to
: answer.

: O'Barr comments:
: Since LET makes all of the same math predictions as SR, then
: LET is the most well proved physical theory that has ever
: existed! It is only personal prejudices that allows such
: thinking as you have just expressed! And the unscientific SR
: FAQ allows such muddy thinking to continue on this net. It is
: time that we stop all this silly thinking, and begin to be more
: scientific! Let is superior, and it does not have anything to
: answer for, to you or to anyone else!

I commend your resolve, but sense desperation. A call to be "more
scientific" is immediately followed by the dictum that "LET...does not

have anything to answer for, to you or to anyone else!"

Still, there is something worth discussing here. I assume your familiar
with the "car and barn" paradox of SR, a paradox which relies on the
false assumption that all observers will agree on simultaneous events. SR
explains this false assumption using spacetime geometry, and gives a
detailed geometric explanation. What is LET's physical
explanation for this paradox? Please note that LET cannot claim the
paradox does not occur, because as you have stated all the results of SR
math are true in LET.

I don't really expect an answer to this question, given LET's track record
of "explaining" time dilation (LET basically says it doesn't have to, it
just assumes all clocks are affected by the physical effect of the ether
in the same way). I sense another hand-waving assumption on the
horizon...

: O'Barr comments:

: The problem is that the math is mathematically opened to
: more than one interpretation. And thus you cannot
: mathematically or scientifically say what you say! You are
: being a fool! And the ether is what makes you a fool!!!! The
: ether math is identical to SR math, and it proves that you have
: no right to scientifically demand your interpretation! It
: proves that you are only making a personal choice, not a
: scientific choice! And until you get this right, you are a
: loser!!!!!!!

Again, reducing yourself to childish insult shows that you are losing your
focus, no matter how many exclamation points are used to boost your
confidence.

Previously you said that "math theories" are inferior to
physical ones, but now you are relying on "more than one interpretation"
of the math to justify the existence of the ether. And now I'm getting
the impression that when you say "the ether math is identical to SR math",
what you really mean is "I haven't developed a mathematical model for the
ether, so I'll just declare it to be identical to SR's math." For the
sake of LET, this had better not be the case, because then you are
defining the ether as a physical medium whose physical effects mimic the
results of the ether-less SR. The ether, then, is itself defined by a
math theory, the very opposite of what you intend.

This is the kernel of the defect I've mentioned earlier in ascribing a
physical cause such as the ether to the effects as produced by SR. You're
supposed to start with the ether as an assumption, then derive the
mathematical model from the assumed mechanics of the ether. Then, by
comparing the two mathematical models, derived ideally without knowledge
of each other, you either find differences that can be tested by
experiment or conclude they are equivalent. It appears you skipped the
derivation and just made the declaration by fiat.

: Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:

: And what a nice restatement of the situation. And in any
: scientific presentation (such as what the SR FAQ should be),
: such an understanding as given by you would be a minimum. And
: if you were to really be scientific, you would point out the
: different advantages of each approach. And this would
: certainly include many advantages for the ether approach over
: SR. And you would then give the specific reason why one or the
: other choice was made. You would not do what most SR text
: books do, where the ether is not even mentioned!

I agree the FAQ should include some mention of the ether, including a
mention of the advantages and disadvantages of the theory, but only in an
historical sense. The current state of LET aside, many brilliant
scientists believed in the existence of the ether at one time, and at
first glance it seems a promising explanation for some physical phenomena.
Consequentially, it should be dealt with, but I think you're optimistic if
you think an objective reading of LET would be favorable to your cause.
Along with whatever "advantages" LET may purport to have, there are many
serious defects, only a few of which I have pointed out in this post.
Also, a FAQ entry would require you to pin down some facts about how the
ether works, a task judging by your disinterest you are loathe to do.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating, as I don't think you
appreciate the gravity of these defects: Until
you answer some questions about how the ether works (enough at least so
that someone other than yourself can derive some of your conclusions),
scientific skepticism is going to dismiss your arguments as sophistry.

: Jones wrote:
: . . . While the ether proponents spend a lot of time

: claiming their ideas are dismissed because the mantra of SR is
: so strong that it can be called a religion, in my opinion there
: will need to be some serious doublethink necessary to make the
: LET position tenable.

: O'Barr comments:
: The ether does a lot more than just declare that everything
: has a physical cause. It locates the physical cause. It gives
: proximity to the effects. It describes every effect exactly
: and perfectly. There are no internal inconsistencies.
: Now your thoughts above are very strange. They are not
: scientific. There are no known flaws in LET. There are no
: known internal contradictions. If there is any doublethink
: that is necessary, it is with SR. You are the ones who have
: maintained things to be true that are not true. You are the
: ones who wrote the SR FAQ, not any ether person. You are the
: ones who have written all the school text books, not me!

I have never written a FAQ or textbook on any topic. I do not have
communion with other "SR experts", though I'm sure I would enjoy their
company at least as much as I have enjoyed yours. This is literally one
guy typing at a terminal in an office, wasting far too much time
discussing the philosophy of science.

I have taken your arguments at face value--you will note that I have never
dismissed the ether theory out of hand, just pointed out some problems I
have with a sound scientific examination of the facts as presented by you.
Your response to these criticisms has been, in my opinion, less than
forthcoming; you are more interested in declaring LET superior rather than
letting the facts speak for themselves. In this sense, you act more like
the "SR experts" you claim are unscientifically persecuting LET. If this
is your method of winning adherents to LET, it is no wonder few rational
people support it today.

GLOBARR

unread,

Aug 18, 2000, 10:10:28 PM8/18/00

In <Wjgn5.26967$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

Ref: <KTXm5.23620$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
<20000817214040...@ng-fp1.aol.com>

<O'Barr Part 1.>

: To be clear, then, the difference between SR and LET is an
: explanation of causes behind the effects that the math
: implies. We are talking about the same results, but using
: different systems to predict them from different fundamental
: causes.

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
: Well not exactly. The ether gives physical causes to what
: happens. SR does not have physical cause. In fact, SR
: cannot even tell us what really physically happens. Such
: words as these make no sense in SR. They do not make sense
: in SR because SR is not a physical theory. One goes with the
: other.

Jones wrote:
Note I said _fundamental_ cause, not physical cause.

O'Barr comments:
Oh I am so sorry. I thought you meant a cause, you know, the
physical reason why it happened. But you did not mean a
physical cause. You did not mean the physical reason why it
happened. You meant the fundamental cause. How come I did not
know that you meant the fundamental cause? How silly of me not
to know that you did not mean the physical cause, but you meant
the fundamental cause. I am so sorry. (And I am so
embarrassed that I do not know what you are saying. Can you e-
mail me so I can understand without letting everyone else know
how dumb I am???? Thanks!!!!!!!)

Jones wrote:
You may reject the idea that there can be a cause other than
strict physical interaction, but I and many rational people
(Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hume) do not. As this point is
clearly a matter of scientific philosophy, rather than a
discussion about relativity, you may benefit from reading some
of these eminent philosophers, particularly Aristotle's
Metaphysics, and not have to worry about any SR bias that may
color their arguments against strict physical cause.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry. I do not have my mother's permission to waste
such time. If you have such time to waste on none physical
causes, be my guest.

Jones wrote:
: ... Analogies are a common method
: for elucidating a subtle truth, if they are not pressed
: too hard. In this particular case, it was used to
: show some of the difficulties with offering a physical
: explanation for the phenomenon of clocks slowing as they move
: thru the ether.

O'Barr wrote:
: If not pressed too hard???? This is exactly what I mean.
: Analogies, by definition, are not the same! If you cannot
: directly explain it, then why the analogy? You do have
: difficulty in presenting physical explanations for anything,
: because SR is not a physical theory!!!!!!!!

Jones wrote:
An explanation is also not the same as the action it
describes. For that matter, this argument can be made against
using any item which describes reality: speech, writing, even
thought. As I stated previously, if you are arguing against
the use of any model, then we have nothing to discuss.

O'Barr comments:
And as I carefully replied, I am not against having models!
And so your `argument' is ridiculous!

: Jones wrote:
: I am asserting that the ether theory cannot explain why
: different clocking mechanisms are affected by a physical
: cause in exactly the same way. It is rare that a presumed
: physical cause affects all physical objects the same way
: (e.g. not all objects can be magnetized, not all objects
: float in water). Gravity in Newton's day is the grand
: exception, and was even recognized as such by his
: contemporaries.
: To be honest, one must admit this is a serious defect of
: the ether theory.

Jones wrote:
True, SR does not explain how to bake an apple pie.

O'Barr comments:
Well thank you! Our first contact!!!! And this is also
true with respect to the ether! LET is not a theory to explain
why clocks slow down. It does not explain where the ether
comes from. It does not explain what the ether is or even the
size of ether atoms. It does not do any of these things. And
there are no scientific reasons why it has to explain any of
these things. Not to you nor to any other person! The ether
theory merely says that if there were an ether that regulated
the speed of light and the lengths of rulers and the rates of
clocks, we would have the entire reality that we now see and
observe.
And the direction that you are trying to take us on this
net, trying to infer that the ether is somehow defective
because it is not a theory of everything, is unscientific. It
is not smart nor adult like behavior. It is not logical or
necessary. So why are you being so dumb??? What drive you SR
experts that you cannot be scientific, and consider things on
their proper level? LET is just as perfect of a theory as is
SR. It is even superior. And to have you to infer otherwise
is a joke!

This post is way too long, and I am going to end it at this
point. And if you cannot unbend a little, I am sure it would
not do any good to continue anyway! But I will post more anyway!
You might be more sincere than your stupidity shows! (And I
am referring specifically to your willingness to imagine non-
physical causes. What a lost cause that is!)

GLOBARR

unread,

Aug 18, 2000, 10:14:51 PM8/18/00

In <Wjgn5.26967$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

Ref: <KTXm5.23620$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
<20000817214040...@ng-fp1.aol.com>

<O'Barr Part 2>
Jones wrote:
. . . LET claims to be a physical theory, yet it cannot

provide an explanation why the physical interaction at the core
of the theory doesn't behave like any other known physical
interaction.

Grald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
You are asking good questions. These are the questions that
must be considered as we go beyond the ether theory. They have
no direct impact in seeing that the ether approach is superior
to SR. Because the ether theory is a physical theory, then it
instantly shows us what questions we need to ask! This is not
a weakness, this is a strength to having a physical or
realistic theory. This is one reason why the ether approach
is superior to SR, which does not give us one single clue as to
where to look for more. It shows us a total blank!
(And if you were really serious in any of this, you should
be studying the at theory!!!!!)

Jones wrote:
The first question anyone will ask when presented with LET
is "What is the ether?" If it is described as a physical
medium, yet fails to act like one, that is going to lead to
more embarassing questions.

O'Barr comments:
These are not embarrassing questions for these who believe
in the ether. These are the questions that need to be asked,
and studied, and researched. These are important questions!
It might even cause some to look at the at theory!

Jones wrote:
This is in part why Lorentz ultimately rejected the theory.

O'Barr comments:
Well, it might be. But I really doubt it. Lorentz could
place electrons in space and do many marvelous things. Are you
sure that you cannot do as well?????

Jones wrote:
And in fairness, SR has been asked similar questions and
answered them--granted, by throwing out any physical cause they
have come up with an answer you do not accept, but at least SR
has answered it with self-consistency, a far better record than
LET.

O'Barr comments:
SR has, mathematically, answered a lot of questions. And do
not forget that the ether has the exact same math!

: Jones continues:
: Facts govern nothing; they simply exist. I assume you mean
: that the results of the experiment must dictate the
: explanation. While this is certainly true, it is also only
: part of the scientific method; another part is the theory's
: ability to predict the outcome of experiments. By appealing to
: geometry, we predict that if the experiment is run under the
: same geometric conditions, the results are as shown. By
: appealing to a physical cause (e.g. the type of writing
: implement used, the material used for the sphere), we are
: forced to re-run the experiment every time we come across a new
: physical situation. The predicting power of such a theory,
: then, is sharply limited. Such, I think, is the case with
: ether theory, a point which stands as another defect.

Jones wrote:
Again, no one is arguing that math dictates reality; all
results must be proved in the courtroom of experiment. The
mathematics used in any theory are helpful in predicting
results. This is the point of a model. Again, if you are
arguing that models are useless because they are not reality,
we have nothing to talk about.

O'Barr comments:
Come on Jones. I know you have read what was written below.
I am not against any kind of a model!!!!!!!

O'Barr comments:
I will break up this post at this point, with the following
comments: I am not biased against SR. In fact, I support SR
math, and I support SR math more than anyone else on this net!
Even more than you!!!! The ether theory explains SR math, and
thus SR math is as correct as the ether is correct!
And we know that we live in a physical reality. If you
have two theories, one with only the math, and one where the
math is based on a physical base, then the one based on a
physical base is one layer deeper into our reality, and is thus
superior to the theory that is just math. Therefore, any and
all flaws that you want to consider above are a waste of time,
even if they were correct. We must see that the ether is
superior to SR, and it is superior because it has a physical
base to the math! For this reason, the ether gives us limits
to the math. The exact limits we need!!!! And it gives us
simpler physics, and simpler velocity additions, and simpler
physical causes and effects. And we are going to accept the
ether approach because it is superior. And there is no way you
can change this! The science is clear, and it cannot be
changed!

GLOBARR

unread,

Aug 18, 2000, 10:21:29 PM8/18/00

In <Wjgn5.26967$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

Ref: <KTXm5.23620$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
<20000817214040...@ng-fp1.aol.com>

<O'Barr Part 3>

Jones wrote:
: It is always good advice to point out that a model must be
: tested against reality. For example, high school algebra
: books are filled with story problems that (when modeled by,
: say, a quadratic equation with a negative root) can lead to
: silly conclusions. The key here, however, is that the
: results are _tested_ against reality, a test that SR has
: passed. LET, on the other hand, seems to avoid questions it
: doesn't want to answer.

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
: Since LET makes all of the same math predictions as SR, then
: LET is the most well proved physical theory that has ever
: existed! It is only personal prejudices that allows such
: thinking as you have just expressed! And the unscientific SR
: FAQ allows such muddy thinking to continue on this net. It
: is time that we stop all this silly thinking, and begin to be
: more scientific! Let is superior, and it does not have
: anything to answer for, to you or to anyone else!

Jones wrote:
I commend your resolve, but sense desperation. A call to be
"more scientific" is immediately followed by the dictum that
"LET...does not have anything to answer for, to you or to
anyone else!"
Still, there is something worth discussing here. I assume
your familiar with the "car and barn" paradox of SR, a paradox
which relies on the false assumption that all observers will
agree on simultaneous events. SR explains this false
assumption using spacetime geometry, and gives a detailed
geometric explanation. What is LET's physical explanation for
this paradox? Please note that LET cannot claim the paradox
does not occur, because as you have stated all the results of
SR math are true in LET.
I don't really expect an answer to this question, given
LET's track record of "explaining" time dilation (LET basically
says it doesn't have to, it just assumes all clocks are
affected by the physical effect of the ether in the same way).
I sense another hand-waving assumption on the horizon...

O'Barr comments:
I am only one person, and I personally do not know much.
And it does not matter what I personally know! I do not have
to know everything, since the superiority of the ether over SR
is not dependent on what I know!
I believe your `car and barn' is the `pole and barn'
paradox. At rest, the pole is longer than the barn. In the
ether's absolute frame, the pole, if moving fast enough, will
shorten enough so that it could momentarily be `placed' in the
barn. If the pole remained at rest in the ether, and the barn
was moved, the pole could never fit in the barn, as measured in
the ether. Now what I say is correct, but it does not violate
any of what is said in SR. On the pole, while it was doing the
moving, the clocks and rulers in the moving frame that included
the pole, will change, and the clocks will be set to a sync
such that to them, the barn was what was changing, not the
pole.
And when the barn was moving in the ether, the clocks and
rulers in the barn's frame will change, and the syncs on the
clocks in this frame will be changed. And these changes will
result in the barn not showing any measured changes, but the
pole will be measured to be short. So SR results are
mathematically achieved. The actual physical results, however,
are only as the ether allows!

: O'Barr comments:
: The problem is that the math is mathematically opened to
: more than one interpretation. And thus you cannot
: mathematically or scientifically say what you say! You are
: being a fool! And the ether is what makes you a fool!!!

: The ether math is identical to SR math, and it proves that

: you have no right to scientifically demand your
: interpretation! It proves that you are only making a
: personal choice, not a scientific choice! And until you get
: this right, you are a loser!!!!!!!

Jones wrote:
Again, reducing yourself to childish insult shows that you
are losing your focus, no matter how many exclamation points are
used to boost your confidence.

O'Barr comments:
It does not matter to me. You are a loser! And this is true
whether it is said with one or a million exclamation points.
You are a loser if you think SR has been shown to be correct by
the results of any experiment that has been accomplished! All
experiments have proved that the ether is correct, just as much
as it has SR. SR only enjoys the math that goes with the ether.
And form a math point of view, or from a scientific point of
view, you cannot say more. And the SR FAQ does not present this
understanding, and is therefore itself a lie (a scientific
fraud)!

Jones wrote: Previously you said that "math theories" are

inferior to
physical ones, but now you are relying on "more than one
interpretation" of the math to justify the existence of the
ether. And now I'm getting the impression that when you say
"the ether math is identical to SR math", what you really mean
is "I haven't developed a mathematical model for the ether, so
I'll just declare it to be identical to SR's math." For the
sake of LET, this had better not be the case, because then you
are defining the ether as a physical medium whose physical
effects mimic the results of the ether-less SR. The ether,
then, is itself defined by a math theory, the very opposite of
what you intend.
This is the kernel of the defect I've mentioned earlier in
ascribing a physical cause such as the ether to the effects as
produced by SR. You're supposed to start with the ether as an
assumption, then derive the mathematical model from the assumed
mechanics of the ether. Then, by comparing the two
mathematical models, derived ideally without knowledge of each
other, you either find differences that can be tested by
experiment or conclude they are equivalent. It appears you
skipped the derivation and just made the declaration by fiat.

O'Barr comments:
I am so sorry. I am not on trial here! SR is on trial, and
the ether is on trial. It does not matter what I think. It
does not matter what I declare or what I define or what I intend
or what I did! If you are an expert, then you tell us: Can the
simple 3-D ether perfectly model our reality???? And you better
be correct and honest! Other SR experts have already answered
this question. And I dare you to try to change their answers!!!

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
: And what a nice restatement of the situation. And in any
: scientific presentation (such as what the SR FAQ should be),
: such an understanding as given by you would be a minimum. And
: if you were to really be scientific, you would point out the
: different advantages of each approach. And this would
: certainly include many advantages for the ether approach over
: SR. And you would then give the specific reason why one or the
: other choice was made. You would not do what most SR text
: books do, where the ether is not even mentioned!

Jones wrote:
I agree the FAQ should include some mention of the ether,
including a mention of the advantages and disadvantages of the
theory, but only in an historical sense. The current state of
LET aside, many brilliant scientists believed in the existence
of the ether at one time, and at first glance it seems a
promising explanation for some physical phenomena.
Consequentially, it should be dealt with, but I think you're
optimistic if you think an objective reading of LET would be
favorable to your cause. Along with whatever "advantages" LET
may purport to have, there are many serious defects, only a few
of which I have pointed out in this post.
Also, a FAQ entry would require you to pin down some facts
about how the ether works, a task judging by your disinterest
you are loathe to do. I've said it before, but it bears
repeating, as I don't think you appreciate the gravity of these
defects: Until you answer some questions about how the ether
works (enough at least so that someone other than yourself can
derive some of your conclusions), scientific skepticism is
going to dismiss your arguments as sophistry.

O'Barr comments:
LET does not have to answer anything except what it presents.
And what it presents is most perfect. For you to require more
is fine, but it has nothing to do with the LET being superior to
SR. Does SR tell us how it physically works? Does it tell us
how spacetime physically works? LET does not have to do more in
any of these areas than what SR does in these areas, to be its
superior. All it has to do is provide the same complete and
correct predictions, and then go on to explain SR. Just by this
one act it becomes superior. And it actually becomes superior
in a multitude of ways.

Jones wrote:
: . . . While the ether proponents spend a lot of time
: claiming their ideas are dismissed because the mantra of SR
: is so strong that it can be called a religion, in my opinion
: there will need to be some serious doublethink necessary to
: make the LET position tenable.

: O'Barr comments:
: The ether does a lot more than just declare that everything
: has a physical cause. It locates the physical cause. It
: gives proximity to the effects. It describes every effect
: exactly and perfectly. There are no internal inconsistencies.
: Now your thoughts above are very strange. They are not
: scientific. There are no known flaws in LET. There are no
: known internal contradictions. If there is any doublethink
: that is necessary, it is with SR. You are the ones who have
: maintained things to be true that are not true. You are the
: ones who wrote the SR FAQ, not any ether person. You are the
: ones who have written all the school text books, not me!

Jones wrote:
I have never written a FAQ or textbook on any topic. I do
not have communion with other "SR experts", though I'm sure I
would enjoy their company at least as much as I have enjoyed
yours. This is literally one guy typing at a terminal in an
office, wasting far too much time discussing the philosophy of
science.
I have taken your arguments at face value--you will note that
I have never dismissed the ether theory out of hand, just
pointed out some problems I have with a sound scientific
examination of the facts as presented by you. Your response to
these criticisms has been, in my opinion, less than forthcoming;
you are more interested in declaring LET superior rather than
letting the facts speak for themselves. In this sense, you act
more like the "SR experts" you claim are unscientifically
persecuting LET. If this is your method of winning adherents
to LET, it is no wonder few rational people support it today.

O'Barr comments:
You are probably correct on this. Since I have been on this
net (on this particular subject, that is) for three years, I
just assume that any person who still takes the SR side is
crazy. Sorry that I jumped to such conclusions so soon! But be
careful. It is not too soon (to call you crazy) if you cannot
understand the problem that SR is in. SR is no longer the
superior theory, and the ether has to be accepted. This is true
mainly because we now definitely know that real changes in clock
rates do occur! These things are not and cannot be just changes
in perspectives! And the ether is the theory that includes
these real changes! And as we re-examine LET, we can now see
that it is superior in all ways. We made a mistake when we
accepted SR. And we know that if SR were the correct model, we
should have found evidence for 4-D, and back-in-time, etc. And
yet, of course, we have found nothing like this. So the ether
wins on all accounts!

Thanks!!!!!!

Jones

unread,

Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00

The original post has been severely edited to save space.

: Jones wrote:
: Note I said _fundamental_ cause, not physical cause.

: O'Barr comments:
: Oh I am so sorry. I thought you meant a cause, you know, the
: physical reason why it happened. But you did not mean a
: physical cause. You did not mean the physical reason why it
: happened. You meant the fundamental cause. How come I did not
: know that you meant the fundamental cause? How silly of me not
: to know that you did not mean the physical cause, but you meant
: the fundamental cause. I am so sorry. (And I am so
: embarrassed that I do not know what you are saying. Can you e-
: mail me so I can understand without letting everyone else know
: how dumb I am???? Thanks!!!!!!!)

It is often difficult to read sarcasm in a written post; thankfully, this
is not one of those times. Because it might enlighten or interest
whatever other masochists are following this thread, I will post a
response here.

On of Aristotle's greatest philosophical contributions was a new notion of
causality. Contrary to early Greek philosophers, Aristotle surmised that
each thing or effect could have more than one reason that explains what,
why, and where it is. Aristotle proposed four: the "material cause", the
"efficient cause", the "formal cause", and the "final cause". As an
example, Aristotle enumerates the four causes of a statue: the material
cause is the marble out of which it is made, the sculptor is the efficient
cause, the formal cause is the shape imagined by the sculptor prior to
execution of the sculpting, and the final cause is the shape as finally
realized when the sculptor has completed the work.

You may ask "why bother making this distinction?" Aristotle answers this
question by stating that something can only be better understood when its
causes are stated in specific rather than general terms. It is more
informative, for example, to say that a sculptor rather than an artist
created the statue ("artist" is equivalent to "genus", "sculptor" to
"species in Aristotle's familiar taxonomy), and even more information is
relayed if we identify Rodin as the sculptor (a specific instance of the
class of sculptors).

By opening the door to non-material causes, Aristotle gains a significant
advantage in understanding the item in question. Sculpture cannot be
understood completely by appealing to only the material cause (the
marble), and though this is only one example, it is clear the idea has
more than a little use in explaining the world around us.

: O'Barr comments:

: I am sorry. I do not have my mother's permission to waste
: such time. If you have such time to waste on none physical
: causes, be my guest.

I enjoy your hospitality, but given the litany of great philosophers who
have "wasted" their time on such fundamental questions, you may want to
reconsider. It also might bolster your own understanding of just what you
are trying to prove.

: Jones wrote:
: An explanation is also not the same as the action it
: describes. For that matter, this argument can be made against
: using any item which describes reality: speech, writing, even
: thought. As I stated previously, if you are arguing against
: the use of any model, then we have nothing to discuss.

: O'Barr comments:
: And as I carefully replied, I am not against having models!
: And so your `argument' is ridiculous!

Of course the argument is ridiculous--that's the point! It is ridiculous
to assume models are useless, so please stop implying that they are.

: Jones wrote:
: True, SR does not explain how to bake an apple pie.

: O'Barr comments:
: Well thank you! Our first contact!!!! And this is also
: true with respect to the ether! LET is not a theory to explain
: why clocks slow down. It does not explain where the ether
: comes from. It does not explain what the ether is or even the
: size of ether atoms. It does not do any of these things. And
: there are no scientific reasons why it has to explain any of
: these things. Not to you nor to any other person! The ether
: theory merely says that if there were an ether that regulated
: the speed of light and the lengths of rulers and the rates of
: clocks, we would have the entire reality that we now see and
: observe.

"There are no scientific reasons why it has to explain any of these
things?" Science is the pursuit of truth via the scientific method. The
scientific method dictates that when a hypothesis such as LET makes a
claim on the structure of reality, that claim must be tested. If you are
exempting LET from this requirement, realize that LET is not a theory
which can be tested, and therefore is not scientific.

: And the direction that you are trying to take us on this

: net, trying to infer that the ether is somehow defective
: because it is not a theory of everything, is unscientific. It
: is not smart nor adult like behavior. It is not logical or
: necessary. So why are you being so dumb??? What drive you SR
: experts that you cannot be scientific, and consider things on
: their proper level? LET is just as perfect of a theory as is
: SR. It is even superior. And to have you to infer otherwise
: is a joke!

I have merely pointed out that if LET claims to be a physical theory, it
is a physical theory unlike any I have ever seen. Worse, when basic
questions about the mechanics of the theory are asked, they are dismissed
as "unimportant". Again, given these problems, it's difficult to take
LET seriously.

: You might be more sincere than your stupidity shows! (And I

: am referring specifically to your willingness to imagine non-
: physical causes. What a lost cause that is!)

Again, I _strongly_ urge you to read philosophical treatises on this
subject; it has been a well-established portion of metaphysics since the
ancient Greeks.

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00

Jones <chj...@wwa.com> writes:
> Again, the theory deals only with light clocks; by rejecting a geometric
> interpretation, you must ad hoc assume the physical cause affects all
> materials in all states identically.

In GET this is done, by the assumption of universality of the ether.
(All fields describe only properties of the ether).

> There is nothing wrong with this--Newton did essentially the same
> thing when he postulated his law of gravitation--but realize it is a
> defect of the theory.

Above theories have this universality assumption in different
formulations. No essential difference.

But my general ether theory explains the strange local Lorentz
symmetry by a simple underlying Euclidean symmetry.

> I have a feeling (with nothing other than skeptical suspicion to support
> it) that ether theory is incapable of predicting anything new;

In the general case (with gravity) it is. Frozen stars instead of
black holes, no big bang singularity.

> it merely builds new assumptions into the theory when a new
> conclusion of SR is reached.

Nonsense. In the non-gravity limit ether theory and relativity are
equivalent, except the EPR-Bell related problems.

> Therefore it's not much of a theory, and can rightly be dismissed
> until these serious defects (physical interaction without
> explanation, lack of new conclusions) can be resolved

The problems of old Lorentz ether theory are already resolved by GET,
see get.ilja-schmelzer.net.

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,

Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00

alan <dark...@mac.SendMeSpam.not.com> writes:
> OK, in condensed matter, in addition to electrons and nuclei, there are
> other excitations which give particle-like fields -- phonons, plasmons,
> polarons, magnons, etc. So, are you saying that things like electrons are
> excitations of the GET ether?

Exactly.

> If so, is this GET ether solid, liquid, gas, or something else?

I tend to think that it is something like a crystal. But my theory
remains silent about this.

This depends on the "matter fields". A solid ether leads to other
"matter fields" than a liquid ether. My GET describes only the most
general properties - the equations for the gravitational field and the
main property of the matter fields (Einstein equivalence principle).

These properties are common for every type of ether which fits into
the theory.

The yet open question is how the special fields we observe in the
standard model (gauge fields, fermion fields) may be explained as
special material properties of some less general, more special ether
theory.

GLOBARR

unread,

Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00

In <8Neo5.55929$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

Ref: <Wjgn5.26967$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
<20000818221028...@ng-cm1.aol.com>

The original post has been severely edited to save space.

Jones then wrote in older post:

: Note I said _fundamental_ cause, not physical cause.

O'Barr wrote: . . .
: . . . I thought you meant a cause, you know, the

: physical reason why it happened. But you did not mean a
: physical cause. You did not mean the physical reason why it
: happened. You meant the fundamental cause.

Jones wrote: . . .
. . . Aristotle enumerates the four causes of a statue: the
material cause is the marble out of which it is made, . .

O'Barr comments:
The marble is not the cause. The marble is the material out
of which it is composed. The marble could exist forever and we
could never have the statue. The marble cannot act on its own!

Jones continues: . .
. . . the sculptor is the efficient cause,

O'Barr comments:
Now this sounds like a cause, at least the word `sculptor.'

Jones continues:
. . . the formal cause is the shape imagined by the sculptor

prior to execution of the sculpting,

O'Barr comments:
How about his education? How about the food he ate the
night before that gave him the energy to do all this? Many of
us have great imaginations, but no sculpture gets produced!

Jones continues:
. . . and the final cause is the shape as finally realized

when the sculptor has completed the work.

O'Barr comments:
You mean he had to finish his work in order to finish? What
great insights we gain!!!!!!!

Jones continues:
. . . You may ask "why bother making this distinction?"

O'Barr asks:
Why bother making this distinction?

Jones continues:

Aristotle answers this question by stating that something
can only be better understood when its causes are stated in
specific rather than general terms. It is more informative,
for example, to say that a sculptor rather than an artist
created the statue ("artist" is equivalent to "genus",
"sculptor" to "species in Aristotle's familiar taxonomy), and
even more information is relayed if we identify Rodin as the
sculptor (a specific instance of the class of sculptors).
By opening the door to non-material causes, Aristotle gains
a significant advantage in understanding the item in question.
Sculpture cannot be understood completely by appealing to only
the material cause (the marble), and though this is only one
example, it is clear the idea has more than a little use in
explaining the world around us.

O'Barr comments:
Well, `marble' seemed to be fairly physical. And a
`sculptor' seems physical. Now `the shape imagined by the
sculptor' seems a little iffy. I guess we could say that you
cannot have an imagination without a brain. But this is true
that the more you think about something, the more you might
learn and know. But there is something to also say about
correct thinking. In science, a physical cause is not meant to
explain the mental decisions or all the other acts of men. You
have your science mixed up, just a little!

O'Barr wrote:
: I am sorry. I do not have my mother's permission to waste
: such time. If you have such time to waste on none physical
: causes, be my guest.

Jones wrote:
I enjoy your hospitality, but given the litany of great
philosophers who have "wasted" their time on such fundamental
questions, you may want to reconsider. It also might bolster
your own understanding of just what you are trying to prove.

O'Barr comments:
I assure you, a lot of philosophers have wasted a lot of
time! And we waste even more time in reading what they have
done!

Jones wrote:
: An explanation is also not the same as the action it
: describes. For that matter, this argument can be made
: against using any item which describes reality: speech,
: writing, even thought. As I stated previously, if you are
: arguing against the use of any model, then we have nothing to
: discuss.

: O'Barr comments:
: And as I carefully replied, I am not against having
: models! And so your `argument' is ridiculous!

Jones wrote:
Of course the argument is ridiculous--that's the point! It is
ridiculous to assume models are useless, so please stop
implying that they are.

O'Barr comments:
I have never said models are useless. But I have pointed
out that not all models are equal! There are different kinds
of models. There are math models, and there are physical
models. And SR is an example of a math model. And anyone with
a brain can look at different models and tell which models are
the best or most useful!

: Jones wrote:
: True, SR does not explain how to bake an apple pie.

: O'Barr comments:
: Well thank you! Our first contact!!!! And this is also
: true with respect to the ether! LET is not a theory to
: explain why clocks slow down. It does not explain where the
: ether comes from. It does not explain what the ether is or
: even the size of ether atoms. It does not do any of these
: things. And there are no scientific reasons why it has to
: explain any of these things. Not to you nor to any other
: person! The ether theory merely says that if there were an
: ether that regulated the speed of light and the lengths of
: rulers and the rates of clocks, we would have the entire
: reality that we now see and observe.

Jones wrote:
"There are no scientific reasons why it has to explain any of
these things?" Science is the pursuit of truth via the
scientific method. The scientific method dictates that when a
hypothesis such as LET makes a claim on the structure of
reality, that claim must be tested. If you are exempting LET
from this requirement, realize that LET is not a theory which
can be tested, and therefore is not scientific.

O'Barr comments:
LET is not exempted from any test! Since it has the
identical math as SR, then it makes the identical predictions
as SR. Thus every test result that has ever been observed to
support SR, is in fact supporting the absolute reference frame
of LET! And because of this simple fact, SR is not able to
freely claim one single fact in its support over the ether!
And most important, because of this fact, then LET is the

most well proved physical theory that has ever existed!

O'Barr wrote:
: And the direction that you are trying to take us on this
: net, trying to infer that the ether is somehow defective
: because it is not a theory of everything, is unscientific. :
It is not smart nor adult like behavior. It is not logical
: or necessary. So why are you being so dumb??? What drive
: you SR experts that you cannot be scientific, and consider
: things on their proper level? LET is just as perfect of a
: theory as is SR. It is even superior. And to have you to
: infer otherwise is a joke!

Jones wrote:
I have merely pointed out that if LET claims to be a
physical theory, it is a physical theory unlike any I have ever
seen. Worse, when basic questions about the mechanics of the
theory are asked, they are dismissed as "unimportant". Again,
given these problems, it's difficult to take LET seriously.

O'Barr comments:
No question about physics can be considered unimportant.
But just because there are unanswered questions, like for SR,
does not put that theory into jeopardy. It depends on the
question. If it is a question that should be answered by the
theory, then of course it is vital to the theory to answer it.
But no theory has to tell us how to bake a pie if baking a pie
is not included! Therefore, you tell us! What does LET not
answer for us that you say that it should? Please list the LET
equations upon which you are making the claim!!!!!

O'Barr wrote:
: You might be more sincere than your stupidity shows! (And I
: am referring specifically to your willingness to imagine non-
: physical causes. What a lost cause that is!)

Jones wrote:
Again, I _strongly_ urge you to read philosophical treatises
on this subject; it has been a well-established portion of
metaphysics since the ancient Greeks.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry. You did not give any scientific reasons to do what
you suggest!

Jones

unread,

Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00

This post is severely edited from the original; specifically, only the car
and bar/pole and barn paradox is examined.

GLOBARR <glo...@aol.com> wrote:
: I believe your `car and barn' is the `pole and barn'

: paradox. At rest, the pole is longer than the barn. In the
: ether's absolute frame, the pole, if moving fast enough, will
: shorten enough so that it could momentarily be `placed' in the
: barn.

I must make a point clear here: the pole is moving with respect to the
absolute frame of the ether. The ether is stationary with respect to this
same frame. The barn is at rest in this same frame. Motion of the pole
thru the ether is causing the pole to shorten when measured by an observer
at rest with respect to the barn, hence at rest with respect to the ether.

: If the pole remained at rest in the ether, and the barn

: was moved, the pole could never fit in the barn, as measured in
: the ether.

A similar explanation to the above; this time the barn is shortened by its
motion thru the ether as measured by an observer at rest in the ether.

: Now what I say is correct, but it does not violate
: any of what is said in SR. On the pole, while it was doing the
: moving, the clocks and rulers in the moving frame that included
: the pole, will change, and the clocks will be set to a sync
: such that to them, the barn was what was changing, not the
: pole.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. To an observer moving with the pole thru
the ether, his measuring instruments are also affected by the motion;
specifically, his ruler is shortened. He does not notice this--he can
still measure the pole and arrive at the same value for its length as when
the pole is at rest w.r.t. the ether. Because this measuring device was
shortened, he will measure the length of the barn longer than it is to an
observer at rest w.r.t. the barn, and he will conclude the barn is longer
than the pole.

This observation is not what SR tells us will happen; the observer moving
with the pole will see the barn as shortern than his fellow observer's
measurement in the frame of the barn. There is one assumption in this
analysis, namely that the ether affects both the pole and measuring device
in the same way, i.e. they are both shortened by the same amount.

: And when the barn was moving in the ether, the clocks and

: rulers in the barn's frame will change, and the syncs on the
: clocks in this frame will be changed. And these changes will
: result in the barn not showing any measured changes, but the
: pole will be measured to be short.

This isn't quite what the pole and barn paradox is, but even so, I can't
see how this is consistent with the above explanation. When
the barn moves thru the ether, the measuring devices should be shortened
at they were when the pole was moving; therefore the pole should be
measured to be _longer_ than it is to an observer at rest w.r.t. the
ether. Again, I am assuming that all objects are affected by the ether in
the same way w.r.t. foreshortening.

The paradox of the pole and barn in SR is that to the observer moving with
the pole the barn appears shorter than the pole, while to an observer at
the barn, the pole appears to be shorter. SR gets around this difficulty
by showing that the observers cannot agree on simultaneity for events
happening at different places, therefore they cannot agree that both ends
of the pole are inside the barn at the same time--the pole observer says
they are, the barn observer says they aren't.

In this explanation, if it is a correct interpretation of ether effects on
material objects, the results do not agree with SR.

: O'Barr comments:
: ...SR is on trial, and

: the ether is on trial. It does not matter what I think. It
: does not matter what I declare or what I define or what I intend
: or what I did! If you are an expert, then you tell us: Can the
: simple 3-D ether perfectly model our reality???? And you better
: be correct and honest! Other SR experts have already answered
: this question. And I dare you to try to change their answers!!!

I am not an expert, but I'll take the bait: No, the simple 3-D ether does
not perfectly model our reality. First of all, and I say this with as
much kindness as I can muster, I suspect any "SR expert" who answered
this question "yes" (especially on usenet, where as the date in the
subject line of this post proves, debates like this can go on forever)
were more interested in having you go away than spending painful post
after post arguing with you.

Furthermore, I make this judgement based on the fact that SR appears to
model our reality very well, and because the ether analysis laid
out in this post for the pole and barn paradox does not agree with SR, and
appears to be inconsistent with itself.

Now, this may be because you did a poor job of presenting it; if so, I
would encourage you to review the theory, or find sharper minds than yours
to give a better explanation. I'm not trying to be insulting here--please
forgive any implied tone in that direction--but if you are defending a
theory, you should understand it well enough to do so. Everyone makes
mistakes, but willful ignorance is an unforgivable sin in science.

: O'Barr comments:
:.... Since I have been on this

: net (on this particular subject, that is) for three years, I
: just assume that any person who still takes the SR side is
: crazy. Sorry that I jumped to such conclusions so soon! But be
: careful. It is not too soon (to call you crazy) if you cannot
: understand the problem that SR is in. SR is no longer the
: superior theory, and the ether has to be accepted. This is true
: mainly because we now definitely know that real changes in clock
: rates do occur! These things are not and cannot be just changes
: in perspectives! And the ether is the theory that includes
: these real changes! And as we re-examine LET, we can now see
: that it is superior in all ways. We made a mistake when we
: accepted SR. And we know that if SR were the correct model, we
: should have found evidence for 4-D, and back-in-time, etc. And
: yet, of course, we have found nothing like this. So the ether
: wins on all accounts!

On comment here: no theory is going to be won or lost on usenet, for the
sole reason that theories must be tested by experiment. It appears from
this last paragraph that you think LET will make predictions that differ
from SR; this is where your effort should lie, in demonstration these
predictions by experiment, rather than browbeating the world. I think
you'd sleep better in the end.

Jones

unread,

Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00

Now this is more like it...a theory that can be digested and examined.
Thank you, Ilja...as I have stated previously, I am not an expert, but am
interested. If you don't mind, I'll review it and probably send you a
question or two in a few weeks.

And to think of all the time I wasted with an idiot like globarr...

Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@wias-berlin.de> wrote:

: Ilja

: --
: I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net

L Hoffman

unread,

Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00

This is the most common misconception I've seen regarding LET. What you
have failed to account for are the light propagation effects, which, in
LET, are the cause of observational reciprocity. Remember that in ether
theories, the speed of light is only constant and isotropic in the ether
frame. In moving frames, one way light speed is not regarded as
isotropic. Since the observer does not know his true state of motion, he
uses E-sync to set his clocks. This causes the moving observer's clocks
to be out of true synchronization, and causes him to measure even an object
stationary in the ether as being length contracted. This is a subtle
point, but essential in understanding LET. Once this understanding has
been achieved, we may then see clearly the physical significance of the SR
measurement system, and can have confidence in its application.

Correctly applied, LET gives the same measurement results as SR.

> this last paragraph that you think LET will make predictions that differ
> from SR; this is where your effort should lie, in demonstration these
> predictions by experiment, rather than browbeating the world. I think
> you'd sleep better in the end.

I sleep much better knowing that my state of motion has no influence
whatsoever on the true distance between the stars.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the vulgar conceive those quantities [space, time, place, motion]
under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible
objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which,
it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true
and apparent, mathematical and common."

Isaac Newton, "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"

GLOBARR

unread,

Aug 22, 2000, 10:36:50 PM8/22/00

In <cQzo5.62405$dC1....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>

Jones <chj...@wwa.com> wrote:

This post is severely edited from the original; specifically,
only the car and bar/pole and barn paradox is examined.

GLOBARR <glo...@aol.com> wrote:
: I believe your `car and barn' is the `pole and barn'
: paradox. At rest, the pole is longer than the barn. In the
: ether's absolute frame, the pole, if moving fast enough, will
: shorten enough so that it could momentarily be `placed' in
: the barn.

Jones wrote:
I must make a point clear here: the pole is moving with
respect to the absolute frame of the ether. The ether is
stationary with respect to this same frame. The barn is at
rest in this same frame. Motion of the pole thru the ether is
causing the pole to shorten when measured by an observer at
rest with respect to the barn, hence at rest with respect to
the ether.

O'Barr comments:
Everything you said above is rational and understandable.
But I do notice that you say some things that are not `ether
based thinking' but `SR based thinking.' In the ether, the
pole, if it is moving in the ether, really does become shorter.
You do not have to say that it is measured to be shorter,
although that is correct if the pole is measured in the rest
frame of the ether. But there would be frames that would not
measure the pole to be shorter, but would measure the barn to
be shorter! They would do this, even thought the physical
situation might be different than what is measured!

O'Barr wrote:
: If the pole remained at rest in the ether, and the barn
: was moved, the pole could never fit in the barn, as measured
: in the ether.

Jones wrote:
A similar explanation to the above; this time the barn is
shortened by its motion thru the ether as measured by an
observer at rest in the ether.

O'Barr wrote:
: Now what I say is correct, but it does not violate
: any of what is said in SR. On the pole, while it was doing
: the moving, the clocks and rulers in the moving frame that
: included the pole, will change, and the clocks will be set to
: a sync such that to them, the barn was what was changing, not
: the pole.

Jones wrote:
OK, now we're getting somewhere. To an observer moving with
the pole thru the ether, his measuring instruments are also
affected by the motion; specifically, his ruler is shortened.
He does not notice this--he can still measure the pole and
arrive at the same value for its length as when the pole is at
rest w.r.t. the ether. Because this measuring device was
shortened, he will measure the length of the barn longer than
it is to an observer at rest w.r.t. the barn, and he will
conclude the barn is longer than the pole.

O'Barr comments:
The barn will not be measured to be longer!
There are SR experts on this net who can explain to you that
you are in error here. There are more than just you on this
net who thinks what you think here, that the barn will be
measured to be larger. But this is not correct. When the barn
is measured, the `rulers' do not move with the barn. And one
has to assume a sycn between clocks so that a length is
measured when coordinates of the front of the barn are recorded
at the same instant that the coordinates of the rear of the
barn are recorded. It is the syncs that exists between these
two clocks that result in a `wrong' measurement so that the
barn becomes short, when in fact it might not be. You need an
SR friend!

Jones wrote:
This observation is not what SR tells us will happen; the
observer moving with the pole will see the barn as shortern
than his fellow observer's measurement in the frame of the
barn. There is one assumption in this analysis, namely that
the ether affects both the pole and measuring device in the
same way, i.e. they are both shortened by the same amount.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, but in SR and in LET, there are three variables
that are present: The length of rulers, the rates of clocks,
and the syncs between clocks. When all three are properly
considered, then both SR and LET both get identical results in
terms of what is `measured'! LET, however, allows what is
physically happening to be understood, while SR has no idea
what is really happening!!!! To SR, the measurements are the
only thing that exist! To SR, the measurements are the only
reality! But in the ether, we see a difference between what
is really happening, verses the `values' that the tools might
record as they `measure' what happens. You need a friend!
This is really simple, but it requires a two step act, to see
what really happens, verses what gets measured.

O'Barr wrote:
: And when the barn was moving in the ether, the clocks and
: rulers in the barn's frame will change, and the syncs on the
: clocks in this frame will be changed. And these changes
: will result in the barn not showing any measured changes, but
: the pole will be measured to be short.

Jones wrote:
This isn't quite what the pole and barn paradox is, but even
so, I can't see how this is consistent with the above
explanation. When the barn moves thru the ether, the measuring
devices should be shortened at they were when the pole was
moving; therefore the pole should be measured to be _longer_
than it is to an observer at rest w.r.t. the ether. Again, I
am assuming that all objects are affected by the ether in
the same way w.r.t. foreshortening.

O'Barr comments:
You are correct to say that all objects are affected in the
same way. If the barn moves, and not the pole, then certainly
it will physically shorten due to its absolute motion through
the ether, and so would all rulers that were moving with the
barn. But these short rulers are not used to measure the
length of the pole by holding them up against the pole! The
length of the pole is done through a process that requires the
use of sync, and until you go through this process a few times,
you will not appreciate the science that is involved. If you
take the trouble to do this, your understanding of SR will be
greatly improved!

Jones wrote:
The paradox of the pole and barn in SR is that to the observer
moving with the pole the barn appears shorter than the pole,
while to an observer at the barn, the pole appears to be
shorter. SR gets around this difficulty by showing that the
observers cannot agree on simultaneity for events happening at
different places, therefore they cannot agree that both ends of
the pole are inside the barn at the same time--the pole
observer says they are, the barn observer says they aren't.

O'Barr comments:
The ether has the same identical math as SR, and therefore
all measurement results are the same. The ether just better
understands what really happens in order for the measurements
to make sense!

Jones wrote:
In this explanation, if it is a correct interpretation of
ether effects on material objects, the results do not agree
with SR.

O'Barr comments:

The measurement results do agree. There will be a
disagreement between the syncs in different frames in the
ether, just as there are in SR! The ether theory (LET) is
perfect in terms of its assumptions! It works perfectly, and
correctly, using simple 3-D space and simple independent time,
and provides to us an understanding of SR that is simpler than
a 4-D reality!

: O'Barr comments:
: ...SR is on trial, and
: the ether is on trial. It does not matter what I think. It
: does not matter what I declare or what I define or what I
: intend or what I did! If you are an expert, then you tell
: us: Can the simple 3-D ether perfectly model our reality????
: And you better be correct and honest! Other SR experts have
: already answered this question. And I dare you to try to
: change their answers!!!

Jones wrote:
I am not an expert, but I'll take the bait: No, the simple 3-D
ether does not perfectly model our reality. First of all, and
I say this with as much kindness as I can muster, I suspect any
"SR expert" who answered this question "yes" (especially on
usenet, where as the date in the subject line of this post
proves, debates like this can go on forever) were more
interested in having you go away than spending painful post
after post arguing with you.

O'Barr comments:
Well, the length of the debate is an embarrassment. I cannot
change that! But I am sure that at least one SR expert should
be willing to give you some guidance on this! I know that it
would not do any good for me to just tell you again what I
think. But I am correct on this, and most every SR expert, at
one time or another, has confirmed on this net, that LET is
equivalent to SR!
I know that you are not an expert. But just think for one
minute: Why are the transforms in SR called the Lorentz
transforms? Lorentz transforms are the transforms used by
Lorentz in his absolute reference frame. The truth is, LET
math and SR math are identical. And all proofs that have been
assumed to be for SR, have really been proof that LET is
correct. And SR experts do not tell us this! Their FAQ does
not tell us this. And yet these are the facts!

Jones wrote:
Furthermore, I make this judgement based on the fact that SR
appears to model our reality very well, and because the ether
analysis laid out in this post for the pole and barn paradox
does not agree with SR, and appears to be inconsistent with
itself.

O'Barr comments:
Well, this error was certainly corrected! Let most perfectly
matches SR in what it predicts for the measurements.

Jones wrote:
Now, this may be because you did a poor job of presenting it;
if so, I would encourage you to review the theory, or find
sharper minds than yours to give a better explanation. I'm not
trying to be insulting here--please forgive any implied tone in
that direction--but if you are defending a theory, you should
understand it well enough to do so. Everyone makes mistakes,
but willful ignorance is an unforgivable sin in science.

O'Barr comments:

I make mistakes every day, and you do not need to feel bad
about correcting me in every way I need it! But in terms of
this particular post, you are the one who needs help, not me.

: O'Barr comments:
: .... Since I have been on this
: net (on this particular subject, that is) for three years, I
: just assume that any person who still takes the SR side is
: crazy. Sorry that I jumped to such conclusions so soon! But
: be careful. It is not too soon (to call you crazy) if you
: cannot understand the problem that SR is in. SR is no longer
: the superior theory, and the ether has to be accepted. This
: is true mainly because we now definitely know that real
: changes in clock rates do occur! These things are not and
: cannot be just changes in perspectives! And the ether is the
: theory that includes these real changes! And as we re-

: examine LET, we can now see that it is superior in all ways.

: We made a mistake when we accepted SR. And we know that if
: SR were the correct model, we should have found evidence for
: 4-D, and back-in-time, etc. And yet, of course, we have
: found nothing like this. So the ether wins on all accounts!

Jones wrote:
One comment here: no theory is going to be won or lost on

usenet, for the sole reason that theories must be tested by
experiment. It appears from this last paragraph that you think
LET will make predictions that differ from SR; this is where
your effort should lie, in demonstration these predictions by
experiment, rather than browbeating the world. I think you'd
sleep better in the end.

O'Barr comments:
Usenet has never been used before as the `intro' to a better
theory. But I have confidence in the `freedom of information'
that exists on the net, and in the power of people to
understand. If just one or two people are really honest, and
really try to understand, the correctness of this approach
should spread like wild-fire, and we are going to see it
happen!!!!!! I have done my home work! I know that I am
mathematically correct. And I know that I am scientifically
correct. Such things can be done, and I have done it, and we
are going to see it accomplished on this net!

Maybe you will help!

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages