Can SR be scientifically accepted?
Gerald L. O'Barr
Today, we have a very strange situation that
exists. We have two theories, SR and LET, that are
said to be mutually exclusive. One requires an
absolute reference frame, and the other is said to
require the exact opposite. One theory (LET) is
totally ignored (even made fun of), and the other
(SR) is held up as the most advanced and the most
accurate theory that has ever existed.
And what is the truth? Why the truth is, SR is a
mess. It is only math. There is no absolute
physical interpretation that can be made from just a
math theory. And because it is only math, then what
interpretations are falsely applied become even more
silly. SR experts say that SR requires there to be a
4-D spacetime continuum. And of course, no real
object can have 4-D in any way. Thus, SR has been
made to be the most silly and the most impossible
concept that exists.
But no matter what lies these SR experts try to
say, LET is today just as viable as it has always
been. Since it has the identical math as SR, and
makes the exact same math predictions as SR, then it
would be impossible for SR to disprove it, or for any
test results to disprove it, without disproving SR.
These facts have now put the SR experts into a very
funny position. Their lies are now clear to all.
Today, SR cannot be scientifically accepted as
'the scientific theory of our reality.' As long as
LET remains viable, then SR cannot be scientifically
preferred over LET. Any acceptance of SR over LET
can only be done as a personal choice. Therefore,
these SR experts have all lied that they were being
scientific in preferring SR. It was only their
personal choices that they were using. No science
could have possibly allowed them to prefer SR over
LET. And these personal choices are now known to be
wrong.
Can any of you now say you can
'scientifically' accept 4-D spacetime continuums being
required by SR? Can any one of you now say you can
scientifically accept the statement that SR prevents
LET from being correct?
There are people now who understand that I am correct.
And I think it is time to start to come out and defend
what we really know!
I believe that the FAQ should be rewritten to
reflect some of these facts. Why don't we try to re-
write the FAQ? I think it would be fun as well as
necessary. Any takers?
Maybe Eward Green would like to try to do this!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
shuba
> And of course, no real
> object can have 4-D in any way.
Hey asshole, an orgasm is 4-D. Remember?
http://www.theobarrs.com/pages/glofam/obarr68.htm
---Tim Shuba---
Bilge
to your location. The answer is yes, they can and did - quite
a number of decades ago. You might consider getting a po box
in town and subscribe to a few magazines to find out what's
going on with only a few days lag time.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Bilge (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net) wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Can SR be scientifically accepted?
Bilge wrote:
> Apparently the pony express is a little slow
>delivering news to your location. The answer is yes,
>they can and did - quite a number of decades ago.
>You might consider getting a po box in town and
>subscribe to a few magazines to find out what's
>going on with only a few days lag time.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Now Bilge. Let us be exact. If I had said that
Newton and SR were the same, you could quote me the
date, time, place, and experiment where the results
showed six standard deviations between SR and Newton.
And this would of course be science! And you could
force me to accept the fact that SR is superior to
Newton's approach!
So Bilge, please quote to me the date, time,
place and experiment, and the number of standard
deviations, that separate out for us SR from LET!
Let us see you be scientific! Let us see you stop
just using words, as you are doing above, and let us
see if you can put science to your silly and stupid
thinking! Otherwise, Bilge, you are only expressing
a personal opinion, and your personal opinion is not
worth anything any more on this net!
And all the newspapers in this world, and all the
magazines in this world, and all the Ph.D.'s in this
world, cannot help you. Science is science, and
stands on its own. You cannot make science to be
just anything you want! You have lost this battle,
and you will have to submit if you wish to continue
to be scientific in your thinking.
I am waiting for you to report to us the number of
standard deviations on a valid scientific test
which shows SR being better than LET! Otherwise,
I think it would be best if you kept your mouth shut!
Gerald L. O'Barr
Ref: <e9b03d3c.0401...@posting.google.com>
<deletes by O'Barr>
In <tim.shuba-0B6AE...@corp.supernews.com>
shuba <tim....@eudoramail.com> wrote: . . .
> http://www.theobarrs.com/pages/glofam/obarr68.htm
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Thanks you, Shuba. You are so kind to introduce my
family to this net. I did not know that that was
allowed. But since you were so kind, let us have a
more complete introduction: This sweet and good
family that you showed, of course, no longer exists.
It is now ten times better!
One of these little girls graduated from high school
at 16 and now teaches computer courses at a local
college, and her husband also teaches computers at
several local colleges and universities. One of
these girls has a master's degree in economics,
researches real estate as far away as Chicago, and
her husband is a college professor. One of these
little girls now teaches art at the same school where
her husband teaches. One of these little boys is now
an assistant city attorney for a city in the Los
Angeles area. One of these little boys has a Ph.D.
in Physics and is an expert in the computer magnetic
memory process. This picture, of course, missed a
few. You did not show another college professor,
another lawyer, and another Ph.D. candidate. And
wives with several master degrees, etc.
Perhaps you would like to introduce to us your
family?
Daniel Weston
GR; and that GR incorporates SR. Is it possible for GR to forget SR and
incorporate rather LET?
Jeff Krimmel
> In <slrnbvnsr1....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>... Bilge
> (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net) wrote:
>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Can SR be scientifically accepted?
>
> Bilge wrote:
>> Apparently the pony express is a little slow
>>delivering news to your location. The answer is yes, they can and did -
>>quite a number of decades ago. You might consider getting a po box in
>>town and subscribe to a few magazines to find out what's going on with
>>only a few days lag time.
>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> Now Bilge. Let us be exact.
Okay, you are _exactly_ an imbecile.
Jeff
--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.
Jeff Krimmel
> ...One of these little boys has a Ph.D. in Physics and is
> an expert in the computer magnetic memory process...
And he has not clued you in to how hopeless your case against SR actually
is?
Unfortunate.
Gerald L. O'Barr
dani...@webtv.net (Daniel Weston) wrote:
Ref: <e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
> ... Those familiar with standard relativity, say
>that SR led to GR; and that GR incorporates SR. Is
>it possible for GR to forget SR and incorporate
>rather LET?
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
From time to time there have been references given
on this very net by others which were supposed to
show that GR can have a correct 3-D interpretation,
just as SR. Maybe they will answer you.
I have pointed out the following: You are correct
to say that GR includes SR. In fact, SR is GR and GR
is SR where there is no gravity (space is flat).
Therefore, if there is a way to make SR 3-D, then so
is GR able to be made to be 3-D, under the same
situation. Therefore, SR controls GR, just as much
as GR controls SR, in SR's domain. If SR, in its
proper domain, is found to be wrong, or weak, or in
need of change, then at the same time, the same thing
must be true with GR. We have no reasons to fear GR
for these reasons, and for many more reasons.
Now it is my opinion that we must make GR to
be a physical theory just as we must make
SR a physical theory. They have to follow each
other. But to answer your question, we must be
careful to understand the following. At present SR
is only math, and so is GR. They both have to be
only math, because they are the same, in the domain
being considered. So GR, being at the moment only
math, might not find it easy to directly adopt LET.
But I am sure it is possible, and that it has already
been done.
This confusion over math versus reality is such a
funny problem to have. Anyone with brains knows they
are not the same thing. We often solve real problems
by using 1-D math, or 2-D math, but this in no way
means that reality in any of these cases were
actually only 1-D or 2-D. There might be
correlations between the math and some symmetry of
the problem, but math, and the number of dimensions
being used, cannot at any time affect actual reality.
This is the most stupid thought that I can imagine,
that 4-D math means that reality is 4-D. This is
silly, and we must bring such ill-thinking to a halt!
Paul B. Andersen
> Now it is my opinion that we must make GR to
> be a physical theory just as we must make
> SR a physical theory.
What is a "physical theory"?
How can a theory be physical?
Can you give an example of such a theory?
[..]
> This is the most stupid thought that I can imagine,
> that 4-D math means that reality is 4-D. This is
> silly, and we must bring such ill-thinking to a halt!
I just wonder, is it width, hight, depth or time that isn't real?
Which of these four entities is not included in your
"physical theory"?
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:btj3je$d5s$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Bilge
>Bilge (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net) wrote:
>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Can SR be scientifically accepted?
>
>Bilge wrote:
>> Apparently the pony express is a little slow
>>delivering news to your location. The answer is yes,
>>they can and did - quite a number of decades ago.
>>You might consider getting a po box in town and
>>subscribe to a few magazines to find out what's
>>going on with only a few days lag time.
>
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> Now Bilge. Let us be exact. If I had said that
>Newton and SR were the same, you could quote me the
>date, time, place, and experiment where the results
>showed six standard deviations between SR and Newton.
>And this would of course be science! And you could
>force me to accept the fact that SR is superior to
>Newton's approach!
> So Bilge, please quote to me the date, time,
>place and experiment, and the number of standard
>deviations, that separate out for us SR from LET!
>Let us see you be scientific!
published in peer reviewd scientific journals in which the
author declares the calculations were made using LET and
gives examples of the calculations. Once you do that, then
we can be exact.
>Let us see you stop just using words, as you are doing above,
>and let us see if you can put science to your silly and stupid
>thinking!
[...]
> I am waiting for you to report to us the number of
>standard deviations on a valid scientific test
>which shows SR being better than LET!
I'm awaiting you to provide references to the articles
in which I can even find numbers to compare.
>Otherwise, I think it would be best if you kept your mouth shut!
Take you brain in for a tuneup. You need a new set of points and
the timing on your synapses advanced a few degrees.
Androcles
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbvqqef....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> OK. Find me a few examples of calculations from articles
> published in peer reviewd scientific journals in which the
> author declares the calculations were made using LET and
> gives examples of the calculations. Once you do that, then
> we can be exact.
>
> >Let us see you stop just using words, as you are doing above,
> >and let us see if you can put science to your silly and stupid
> >thinking!
>
> [...]
> > I am waiting for you to report to us the number of
> >standard deviations on a valid scientific test
> >which shows SR being better than LET!
>
> I'm awaiting you to provide references to the articles
> in which I can even find numbers to compare.
>
> >Otherwise, I think it would be best if you kept your mouth shut!
>
> Take you brain in for a tuneup. You need a new set of points and
> the timing on your synapses advanced a few degrees.
>
Hey, Peer! Start reviewing this before I have this published, it's on its
way.
Notice that it has nothing to do with physics, either. Just mathematics.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental_rv_2.0.htm
Let me know if you think it passes muster, and if not, why not.
Thanks.
Androcles
Harry
news:e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > Now it is my opinion that we must make GR to
> > be a physical theory just as we must make
> > SR a physical theory.
>
> What is a "physical theory"?
> How can a theory be physical?
> Can you give an example of such a theory?
See for example Amazon.com: A survey of physical theory by Max Planck.
Harald
Harry
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbvqqef....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > So Bilge, please quote to me the date, time,
> >place and experiment, and the number of standard
> >deviations, that separate out for us SR from LET!
> >Let us see you be scientific!
>
> OK. Find me a few examples of calculations from articles
> published in peer reviewd scientific journals in which the
> author declares the calculations were made using LET and
> gives examples of the calculations. Once you do that, then
> we can be exact.
Dear Bilge, recently I provided two reference to two papers on this subject.
No.1 provided explicitly to what you ask (I noticed some historical mistakes
and other weak points but that is irrelevant for the calculations), No.2 was
not about directly about LET but effectively rejected SRT-Einstein in favour
of SRT-Lorentz.
1. H. Ehrlichson, "Rod contraction-clock retardation ether theory and
special theory of relativity", Amer. J. Phys. 1973 vol. 41 (9), p.1068-1077.
2. G. Builder, "Ether and Relativity", Austr. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11,
p.279-297
Regards,
Harald
Gerald L. O'Barr
This may be true. And for me to answer you probably
proves it! But please note that you also, just like Bilge,
post things on this scientific net with no scientific
content. You did not answer the question under discussion!
Are you just as dumb as Bilge?
SR has no reasons to be believed over LET other than for
personal reasons. For any person not to be willing to state
such things show that they are prejudiced. LET is
scientifically superior to SR in every way where a superiority
can exist. Any we will see this thought accepted right
here on this net!
Thanks for reading, but no thanks for your dumb post.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
That is a good question, Paul. Do you mean to say that
all SR experts really believe in the same 3-D space and
independent time of Newton? And that SR is only a math
that expresses this? If this is true, then we do all
agree! Isn't that nice. But if not, then you are a
liar! Please note, you either were lying, or you are
now lying. You cannot have it both ways! So which way
was it?
Please be more specific!
Peter Kinane
Hi paul,
Let's have your definition of "time"?
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
Bilge
No, it doesn't. You haven't defined any terms and there is no logical
connection between the 2 equations you have on that page. No one could
possibly figure out what those equations mean from what you've written
unless they assume what every undefined variable and term means. In your
case, making any assumption about anything to which you haven't been
pinned down, would be rather naive. So, no. That page doesn't include
enough detail to be published anywhere.
The fact that you appear to have lifted the text from einstein is
irrelevant. Einstein wrote an entire paper. You lifted two equations, and
didn't even preserve the logical ordering of the sections from which they
were lifted (not that there's enough there to connect the two equations if
you had). I don't think einstein placed section 5 ahead of section 3.
If you asked me whether the equation ab = ba was true, I'd still ask you
to define a and b. If said yes, you'd most certainly say you were talking
about matrices in order to obtain "proof" that I didn't know what I was
talking about. If I said no, you'd just as cerainly say that anyone knows
that numbers can be multiplied in any order, and again, obtain your
"proof". If I said maybe, then you'd accuse me of evading the question and
say that I didn't know the answer, thereby obtaining your "proof"
regardless of what I say. You attempt some variation on this theme
all the time.
Sorry, but after the first kook or two pulled that stunt, I don't play
that game anymore. I only assume a question is meant as it appears to be
intended from people whom I trust to not have a hidden agenda in asking
it. You aren't one of those people. Even if you could prove you've taken
something verbatim from a stone tablet into which god chiseled the
original text, I expect you to fill in the details that pin you down to my
satisfaction before you'll get the response for which it appears you've
asked. I'm not going to spend time trying to figure out the latest
variation on the same old con.
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnbvqqef....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>SNIP
>> > So Bilge, please quote to me the date, time,
>> >place and experiment, and the number of standard
>> >deviations, that separate out for us SR from LET!
>> >Let us see you be scientific!
>>
>> OK. Find me a few examples of calculations from articles
>> published in peer reviewd scientific journals in which the
>> author declares the calculations were made using LET and
>> gives examples of the calculations. Once you do that, then
>> we can be exact.
>
>Dear Bilge, recently I provided two reference to two papers on this subject.
of the details which illustrate how the ether was used so we can compare
the reults to a relativistic calculation.
>No.1 provided explicitly to what you ask (I noticed some historical mistakes
>and other weak points but that is irrelevant for the calculations), No.2 was
>not about directly about LET but effectively rejected SRT-Einstein in favour
>of SRT-Lorentz.
It's impossible to reject special relativity if all you assume about the
theories is equivalence based upon the lorentz transforms. The mathematics
is so simple. Since rotations are half of the lorentz transforms and
obtained with exactly the same math, it can't be logically inconsistent.
>
>1. H. Ehrlichson, "Rod contraction-clock retardation ether theory and
>special theory of relativity", Amer. J. Phys. 1973 vol. 41 (9), p.1068-1077.
>
>2. G. Builder, "Ether and Relativity", Austr. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11,
>p.279-297
>
Unless those are online, I'm not going to be able read them until I
get around to going to library (and remember to find those particular
articles). Is there anything in there that makes use of any ontology
which could lead to a theory (and prediction) for any phenomenon
that differs from a prediction made without the ontology? If not,
the ontology isn't being used.
Androcles
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<_t9Lb.6248$d27....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > Is it mathematical theory, then, Paul?
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> That is a good question, Paul. Do you mean to say that
> all SR experts really believe in the same 3-D space and
> independent time of Newton? And that SR is only a math
> that expresses this? If this is true, then we do all
> agree! Isn't that nice. But if not, then you are a
> liar! Please note, you either were lying, or you are
> now lying. You cannot have it both ways! So which way
> was it?
>
>
> Please be more specific!
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
Yes, Gerald, and I have one for you too.
You denounce SR, yet the postulates of SR are something you accept.
So what is wrong with SR?
Androcles
Androcles
It seems you've written a page to provide an excuse for not understanding
how two equations are incompatible, and I must write a page explaining the
simplest of algebra and logic to someone that is supposedly intelligent.
I'm not discussing physics here, I'm discussing mathematics.
In a nutshell, Einstein begins with the assumption that it is legitimate to
make use of a postulate (section 1), uses that postulate (section 3), then
proves he cannot use that postulate (section 5). That is the logical
progression you are objecting too.
When it is pointed out to you in the simplest possible way that this doesn't
hold water, you then decide not to waste time investigating it.
There is no 'hidden' agenda, by the way. My agenda is quite open and
apparent. I intend to bring SR crashing down, and whether you trust me or
not, I now know I cannot trust you to reason in a logical and consistent
manner.
However, I do thank you for your reply, it does inform me of the extent of
the bigotry I must overcome.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:KtjLb.788$qM1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbvrgrd....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
[snip]
> > Sorry, but after the first kook or two pulled that stunt, I don't play
> > that game anymore. I only assume a question is meant as it appears to be
> > intended from people whom I trust to not have a hidden agenda in asking
> > it. You aren't one of those people. Even if you could prove you've taken
> > something verbatim from a stone tablet into which god chiseled the
> > original text, I expect you to fill in the details that pin you down to my
> > satisfaction before you'll get the response for which it appears you've
> > asked. I'm not going to spend time trying to figure out the latest
> > variation on the same old con.
> I see.
uh-oh.... it sees. Watch it now...
> It seems you've written a page to provide an excuse for not understanding
> how two equations are incompatible, and I must write a page explaining the
> simplest of algebra and logic
uh-oh.... logic...
> to someone that is supposedly intelligent.
> I'm not discussing physics here, I'm discussing mathematics.
uh-oh... mathematics...
> In a nutshell, Einstein begins with the assumption that it is legitimate to
> make use of a postulate (section 1), uses that postulate (section 3), then
> proves he cannot use that postulate (section 5). That is the logical
> progression you are objecting too.
> When it is pointed out to you in the simplest possible way that this doesn't
> hold water, you then decide not to waste time investigating it.
uh-oh... it thinks it has to be investigated...
> There is no 'hidden' agenda, by the way. My agenda is quite open and
> apparent. I intend to bring SR crashing down
uh-oh... down... like...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheLiar.html (new!)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapHuh.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Loadcrap.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Vision.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HelpPretend.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ProveProof.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html (new!)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Equation.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Relativist.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Chuckle.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AboutTheories.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ConArtist.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ProvePostulate.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Abstraction.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedInvariant.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndersenLogic.ht.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndArg.html
>, and whether you trust me or
> not, I now know I cannot trust you to reason in a logical and consistent
> manner.
uh-oh... logical...
> However, I do thank you for your reply, it does inform me of the extent of
> the bigotry I must overcome.
I think a maggot like you should overcome its own bigotry first...
> Androcles
Waiting for the publication...
Will it be Galilean Electrodynamics?
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <madscie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.01.08....@hotmail.com>...
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:05:57 -0800, Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
[...]
>> > Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
>> > Now Bilge. Let us be exact.
>>
>> Okay, you are _exactly_ an imbecile.
>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> This may be true. And for me to answer you probably
> proves it! But please note that you also, just like Bilge, post things on
> this scientific net with no scientific content. You did not answer the
> question under discussion! Are you just as dumb as Bilge?
If I'm "just as dumb as Bilge" when it comes to physics, I would consider
myself in good shape.
> SR has no reasons to be believed over LET other than for
> personal reasons.
Not true, as has been repeatedly explained ad infinitum around here.
> For any person not to be willing to state such things
> show that they are prejudiced.
And explain to me, again, how you are not "prejudiced" against SR?
> LET is scientifically superior to SR in
> every way where a superiority can exist.
This is as absurd a statement as one can make in this context.
> Any we will see this thought
> accepted right here on this net!
Obviously this thought has already been accepted, by you. The rest will
continue to make their own evaluations, hopefully on statements much more
scientifically-minded than your "LET is scientifically superior to SR in
every way where a superiority can exist."
Jeff
Peter Kinane
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:btj3je$d5s$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > > I just wonder, is it width, hight, depth or time that isn't real?
> > > Which of these four entities is not included in your
> > > "physical theory"?
> > >
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> That is a good question, Paul. Do you mean to say that
> all SR experts really believe in the same 3-D space and
> independent time of Newton? []
Perhaps you would have a comment on this model, from
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
* The Effectuationism Physics Model
The Effectuationism Physics Model, informed by the principles of the
philosophy system, is a model for a four dimensional Universe.
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces; Man- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - 'Time- -Being'.
To establish value through a definite reference frame (FOR), establish
an inertial field, perhaps galactic in dimensions, through
co-ordinates - within tension of indefinite and dynamic forces.
That field is frame of reference, and expressing more local FORs,
perhaps, for example, distance from A to B. Call it DX.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FOR-DX is an event.
The duration of that particular movement- -event shall be SMS
(Standard Movement Speed).
Different movement speeds- -values can be determined through
relationship with that SMS.
* I expect that people are not used to using, perhaps even thinking
of, a clock as an SMS.
This model features a quite distinct concept of time to that which A.
Einstein expressed. Here 'the event is time', whereas for A. E. an
event takes place in time. I believe that through this model a much
simpler mathematics could emerge.
All that is required is the inertial field, and there-in more local
fields - the frame of reference - which would be the co-ordinates
against which particular movements take place - in effect, the
observer and the movement. Thereby, 'the event', and there-in _time_
effects.
SMS: Let's be economical and make the SMS that of the existing clocks,
determined by a point, such as Big Ben, on the earth, spinning on its
axis, in relation to the sun.
Attempt to demonstrate the model:
With a watch/clock showing 10.30 am, and running, one leaves the door
of one's house to walk the 1 mile to the local mathematician (to chat
about how to calculate the speed of one's return walk). On arrival the
watch is showing 10.40 am - better at walking than at math.
What does ten mins. represent? The earth at the equator does 24,901
thousand miles in 24 hours (1440 mins). It does 24,901 miles divided
by 1440 in one min. (17.3). So, the result multiplied by 10 is what
it does in 10 mins. In comparison with this SMS, the walker has done 1
mile in 10 mins.
Of course the scene can be complicated by having different walkers
commence from different points, and in the three dimensions, and
walking at the necessary speed to meet the mathematician
simultaneously, though he is on his way to the golf course. *
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
Bilge
>> that game anymore. I only assume a question is meant as it appears to be
>> intended from people whom I trust to not have a hidden agenda in asking
>> it. You aren't one of those people. Even if you could prove you've taken
>> something verbatim from a stone tablet into which god chiseled the
>> original text, I expect you to fill in the details that pin you down to my
>> satisfaction before you'll get the response for which it appears you've
>> asked. I'm not going to spend time trying to figure out the latest
>> variation on the same old con.
>I see. It seems you've written a page to provide an excuse for not
>understanding how two equations are incompatible, and I must write
>a page explaining the simplest of algebra and logic to someone that
>is supposedly intelligent.
out everything in enough detail such that no room is left for ambiguity.
I do so because I'm supposedly intelligent. Intelligence extends to
being street smart and not letting someone play a con off one's
ego.
>I'm not discussing physics here, I'm discussing mathematics.
needed to demonstrate whatever it is you think you can demonstrate
and do it with the rigor of a mathematical proof.
>In a nutshell, Einstein begins with the assumption that it is legitimate to
>make use of a postulate (section 1), uses that postulate (section 3), then
>proves he cannot use that postulate (section 5). That is the logical
>progression you are objecting too.
requiring that s^2 = s'^2 under an infinitessimal displacement,
s -> s' = s + \delta s amd the same derivation gives the coordinate
transformations for spatial rotations in a plane, you'll have to do
better than that. In particular, you'll have to tell me why the
coordinate transformation,
x' = x cos(A) + y sin(A)
y' = y cos(A) - x sin(A)
is invalid or else tell me how it could possibly be correct if the
transformation below is wrong:
t' = t cosh(A) - x sinh(A)
x' = x cosh(A) - t sinh(A)
They come from the same derivation. Note the similarity.
>When it is pointed out to you in the simplest possible way that this
>doesn't hold water, you then decide not to waste time investigating it.
Telling me something is incorrect is not the same as pointing
out the reason you think it's incorrect in a way that is mathematically
rigorous. It's not up to me to guess, especially since I think you're
wrong.
>There is no 'hidden' agenda, by the way.
I wasn't referring to the obvious overall agenda. That is a common
agenda. I was referring to the particular selection of questions and
the manner in which they are presented as part of a scheme to misconstrue
the responses to suit your argument - the way attorneys do when selecting
witnesses and preparing questions or the way the police do to try and
make someone look as guilty in an interview as they have already decided
they are. The overt agenda is justice. The real agenda is convicting
whomever happens to be handy as a suspect, which isn't always the
person who comitted the crime.
>My agenda is quite open and apparent. I intend to bring SR crashing
>down, and whether you trust me or not, I now know I cannot trust you
>to reason in a logical and consistent manner.
First of all, if you really think either you or I will have any
influence on the fate of relativity, you're deluded. Relativity
has been successful beyond anything einstein might have imagined,
so an argument in a newsgroup will do lttle to persuade anyone
that matters. Second, I never asked you to trust me or not. However,
I do provide the derivations in detail so you can check them yourself
using simple algebra. So far you've presented two equations without
doing anything other than telling me they're inconsistent and arguing
about having to show where the inconsistency lies. Third, why should
I believe you when I've derived the lorentz transforms myself without
doing it any way that resembles what's in einstein's 1905 paper?
I couldn't care less if about any particular exception you take
with what you think isn't justified in that paper. I don't need
that derivation.
>However, I do thank you for your reply, it does inform me of the extent
>of the bigotry I must overcome.
A smart con would realize when the jig is up and try to exploit
a different personality trait. I know more accept your biased notion
of "biogtry" than your biased notion of anything else.
Gerald L. O'Barr
>>Bilge (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Can SR be scientifically accepted?
>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Now Bilge. Let us be exact. If I had said that
>>Newton and SR were the same, you could quote me the
>>date, time, place, and experiment where the results
>>showed six standard deviations between SR and Newton.
>>And this would of course be science! And you could
>>force me to accept the fact that SR is superior to
>>Newton's approach!
>> So Bilge, please quote to me the date, time,
>>place and experiment, and the number of standard
>>deviations, that separate out for us SR from LET!
>>Let us see you be scientific!
Bilge wrote:
> OK. Find me a few examples of calculations from
>articles published in peer reviewd scientific
>journals in which the author declares the
>calculations were made using LET and gives examples
>of the calculations. Once you do that, then we can
>be exact.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Yes, you are too smart to answer the question.
This ability to play dumb and ignorant is not going
to allow you to get away with anything. The way
science determines the scientific theory of choice is
by getting the best experts together, deciding on
what the real differences might be between two
competing theories, then decide the best test to be
done to make a scientific decision. You conduct the
test, and let the results of the test make the
decision for you. This is how SR was selected over
Newton's approach, many times over. And specific
standard deviations were obtained to show how strong
of an indication was obtained for each test.
Anyone can cite tests after tests where the
comparing of mass changes, and energy changes, and
clock time changes, and any number of other ways in
which these two approaches were compared and results
of the tests made the decision for SR. These tests
produced results that directly compared the
differences between these theories. It is silly to
think that you look up articles based on Newton, and
then articles based on SR, to make your decisions, as
you are asking above between SR and LET. Have you
gone completely local?
Although all things might be possible, you might
really be able to do something like what you asked
for, but this is not the normal or preferred way, and
it was not the way that was requested. I think you
are merely trying to delay the defeat that you face!
It is completely irrelevant whether any articles have
been made by LET. It is the result of a test
designed to differentiate between these two that
counts. And so far, you have not identified such a
test, or its results, and the number of standard
deviations that were achieved!
It is you who have made the decision to accept SR
over LET, so show me the science that supports this
choice. If you have no test in which LET and SR
were scientifically compared by a scientific test,
showing several standard deviations, then you have
made a personal choice, not a scientific choice. And
I am getting tired of the run around. You are one
sick person, to not even to try to be correct in what
you do!
Every SR expert on this net is going to have to
answer this same question. And we better have an
answer, or else there is going to be some changes in
what is being said by you so-called experts!
<deletes of repeating junk!>
Androcles
If you believe you can derive the Lorentz transforms solely by assuming the
speed of light in interstellar space is constant and independent of the
motion of the emitter plus the Principle of Relativity, without any other
unwarranted assumptions, then I invite you to do so, here. It is your claim,
after all. I think it is you that is conning us, so let us see if you
realize the jig is up.
Androcles
.
Peter Kinane
Edit:
From http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
* The Effectuationism Physics Model
The Effectuationism Physics Model, informed by the principles of the
philosophy system "Effectuationism", is a model for a four dimensional
Universe.
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces. With further
development: Indefinite and dynamic Man- -Ground in tension with
moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
To establish value through a definite and static frame of reference
(FOR), establish an
inertial field, perhaps galactic in dimensions, through co-ordinates -
within tension of indefinite and dynamic forces.
That field is frame of reference (Man- -Ground), and expressing more
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/ *
Harry
> Harry:
> >
> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnbvqqef....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >SNIP
> >> > So Bilge, please quote to me the date, time,
> >> >place and experiment, and the number of standard
> >> >deviations, that separate out for us SR from LET!
> >> >Let us see you be scientific!
> >>
> >> OK. Find me a few examples of calculations from articles
> >> published in peer reviewd scientific journals in which the
> >> author declares the calculations were made using LET and
> >> gives examples of the calculations. Once you do that, then
> >> we can be exact.
> >
> >Dear Bilge, recently I provided two reference to two papers on this
subject.
>
> OK, then post the numbers calculated via the ether along with some
> of the details which illustrate how the ether was used so we can compare
> the reults to a relativistic calculation.
The calculations are the same I think - what matters is the basis for them.
> >No.1 provided explicitly to what you ask (I noticed some historical
mistakes
> >and other weak points but that is irrelevant for the calculations), No.2
was
> >not about directly about LET but effectively rejected SRT-Einstein in
favour
> >of SRT-Lorentz.
>
> It's impossible to reject special relativity if all you assume about the
> theories is equivalence based upon the lorentz transforms. The mathematics
> is so simple. Since rotations are half of the lorentz transforms and
> obtained with exactly the same math, it can't be logically inconsistent.
I have never seen a proof that mathematical consistency always guarantees
logical consistency for what is modelled.
In fact I may be able to prove the contrary (I plan to do that in a new
thread).
> >1. H. Ehrlichson, "Rod contraction-clock retardation ether theory and
> >special theory of relativity", Amer. J. Phys. 1973 vol. 41 (9),
p.1068-1077.
> >
> >2. G. Builder, "Ether and Relativity", Austr. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11,
> >p.279-297
> >
>
> Unless those are online, I'm not going to be able read them until I
> get around to going to library (and remember to find those particular
> articles). Is there anything in there that makes use of any ontology
> which could lead to a theory (and prediction) for any phenomenon
> that differs from a prediction made without the ontology? If not,
> the ontology isn't being used.
1) compares LET (SRT-Lorentz) with "SRT", meaning SRT-Einstein. Those are
completely different ontologies which are claimed to lead to the same
predictions.
2) uses SRT and concludes from the absoluteness character of acceleration
forces the existence of a physical inertial reference frame - kind of
reverse engineering, deriving a hidden ontology from the laws.
Harald
Paul B. Andersen
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<_t9Lb.6248$d27....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:btj3je$d5s$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > > "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> > news:e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Now it is my opinion that we must make GR to
> > > > be a physical theory just as we must make
> > > > SR a physical theory.
> > >
> > > What is a "physical theory"?
> > > How can a theory be physical?
> > > Can you give an example of such a theory?
No?
Thought so.
> > > > This is the most stupid thought that I can imagine,
> > > > that 4-D math means that reality is 4-D. This is
> > > > silly, and we must bring such ill-thinking to a halt!
> > >
> > > I just wonder, is it width, hight, depth or time that isn't real?
> > > Which of these four entities is not included in your
> > > "physical theory"?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > Is it mathematical theory, then, Paul?
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> That is a good question, Paul. Do you mean to say that
> all SR experts really believe in the same 3-D space and
> independent time of Newton?
I mean to say that both NM, LET and SR describe "reality"
with three spatial dimentiontions + time.
(You have to look to modern string theories to find anything
new in this respect.)
> And that SR is only a math that expresses this?
Like NM and LET is only math that expresses this.
> If this is true, then we do all agree!
> Isn't that nice. But if not, then you are a
> liar! Please note, you either were lying, or you are
> now lying. You cannot have it both ways! So which way
> was it?
Call me an idiot, I don't mind.
But I recent being called a liar.
I think you know what "lying" means.
I also think you know I am not wilfully stating something I know is untrue.
So what are you doing?
>
> Please be more specific!
Please explain why this is 4D-math describing a 4D reality:
SR:
t' = g(t - vx/c^2)
x' = g(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
while the following is 3D-math describing a 3D reality:
LET:
t' = g(t - vx/c^2)
x' = g(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
NM:
t' = t
x' = x -vt
y' = y
z' = z
So what exactly is "4D reality" as opposed to "3D reality" supposed to mean?
Please be specific.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> skrev i melding news:3ffd61b9$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Not the same meaning!
"Physical Theory" in that title means "theory of physics", whereas
I with " a physical theory" meant a theory which has the property
that it is physical.
Look at the context of my question!
"A physical theory" was by O'Barr used as opposed to "a math theory",
and it is obvious that he with the latter didn't mean "a theory of mathematics",
but " a mathematical theory of physics".
So to specify my question better:
What is "a physical theory of physics" as opposed to
"a mathematical theory of physics." ?
My point is that it is meaningless.
"A theory" is an abstract concept which cannot be assigned the property
of being physical.
Bottom line:
No theory of physics is physical.
All theories of physics are expressed mathematically.
(all but possibly a few crackpot "theories")
There is no difference between SR and LET in this respect.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> skrev i melding news:d8097fcc.04010...@posting.google.com...
Time is what is measured with clocks.
It's the only kind of time that has physical consequences.
You can invent other abstract definitions of "time", but they
will be useless in physics if they aren't measurable.
If it is measurable, "a clock" is what you measure it with.
The next question will then be: "what is a clock?".
A good question. :-)
Paul
Androcles
That's some good stuff you are smoking, but I advise you give it up.
Androcles
Peter Kinane
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:btmact$bv7$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> skrev i melding news:d8097fcc.04010...@posting.google.com...
> Time is what is measured with clocks.
> It's the only kind of time that has physical consequences.
Re the second sentence first:
I find that it makes better sense to think of time as the
consequences- -events of interactive forces.
Re the first sentence, and your "good question":
I find that it would make better sense to use clocks as a standard
speed of events.
:)
>
> You can invent other abstract definitions of "time", but they
> will be useless in physics if they aren't measurable.
Well, perhaps you have not given much thought to my model, but I'm
afraid that what you are saying is that your definition of time is
something which is measured by clocks, and then presume that all good
definitions of time will be measurable - like they were close kin of
your concept.
A tip from good philosophy, in contrast to classical nonsense:
A concept does not translate or transfer across systems- -models - it
transforms.
> If it is measurable, "a clock" is what you measure it with.
>
> The next question will then be: "what is a clock?".
> A good question. :-)
>
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
Gerald L. O'Barr
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
Ref: <e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
<13697-3FF...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net>
<e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
<btj3je$d5s$1...@dolly.uninett.no>
<_t9Lb.6248$d27....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
<e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
<deletes>
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>...> What is a "physical theory"?
>...> How can a theory be physical?
>...> Can you give an example of such a theory?
<deletes by O'Barr>
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
An example of a physical theory is PV = nRT. With
this theory, you start out with physical assumptions,
and from these physical assumptions, you develop the
math. Since you start with physical assumptions,
then the math is limited by these original
assumptions in terms of what the math means, and
where it can be applied and where it might not apply.
An example of just a math theory (such as SR) is
Newton's law of gravity. This law is just stated,
with no physical assumptions upon which the math was
developed. The math assumptions in SR revolve around
the making of c a math constant, with restrictions in
the forms of the math equations.
None of these concepts are difficult. They have
been standard knowledge for over 300 years.
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
>> . . . Do you mean to
>> say that all SR experts really believe in the same
>> 3-D space and independent time of Newton?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>I mean to say that both NM, LET and SR describe
>"reality" with three spatial dimentiontions + time.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
I see. You want to play games! You could also
say that there are places where all these theories
are also described all in the same language, all in
English. How smart! They must then all be the same!
But poor little Paul, the question is not if they
are all described in or with the same four variables.
The question is the number of dimensions in the
reality being considered. Did you forget the
subject? Did you get lost? What is your problem?
In NM and in LET, reality is a simple, knowable,
understandable, 3-D space. In SR, you have a 4-D
spacetime continuum, in which all dimensions are the
same, and can rotate into each other. They can
trade places being all part of the same reality. Did
you forget your own theory?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>(You have to look to modern string theories to find
>anything new in this respect.)
O'Barr comments:
O.K. So now you want to jump from a 3-D reality
to a 4-D reality to a 10-D reality. I do have to
admit that this is a big jump, and includes new
variables, but you are being evil to refuse to admit
a difference between Newton's 3-D and SR 4-D. One is
physically possible, the other is physically
impossible.
O'Barr wrote:
>> And that SR is only a math that expresses this?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Like NM and LET is only math that expresses this.
O'Barr comments:
I am sorry. In LET, the following physical
assumptions are made: There is a physical ether that
exists in simple 3-D space, that gives a physical
means for light, or any other object, to have a
physical reference upon which a meaningful velocity
can be considered at each and every point. The
physical objects that move in this ether shorten in
the direction of their motions, and the clocks that
have motion in this physical ether see a reduction in
their rates. All of this is physical, providing a
complete understanding of the physical reality within
which LET functions. The rate of clocks is the
natural function that a light clock would exhibit,
and the length change would be how an equal potential
sphere would deform. Again, all of this is physical,
and clear and understandable in every physical way.
None of SR is presented in a physical way so that
real physical meaning exists. No one knows how c can
physically be a measured constant, or what really
physically happens to get any of the measured results
of SR. You do not know how anything is actually
accomplished, you only know the measured results!
O'Barr wrote:
>> If this is true, then we do all agree!
>> Isn't that nice. But if not, then you are a
>> liar! Please note, you either were lying, or you
>> are now lying. You cannot have it both ways! So
>> which way was it?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>Call me an idiot, I don't mind.
>But I recent being called a liar.
>
>I think you know what "lying" means.
>I also think you know I am not wilfully stating
>something I know is untrue.
>So what are you doing?
O'Barr comments:
I observed exactly what you did. You carefully
stated things in a way that was technically correct:
you said that NM, LET, and SR all used the same
variables. The lie was your intent. You did not
want to admit that when we say 3-D space and
independent time, that this is different than 4-D.
Thus you really did lie. And I stand on this point.
For any intelligent person, for any SR expert, to say
that SR uses the same reality as is used by NM and
LET just because they all use, by name, the same
variables, is more than just a lie, it is evil. You
need to repent!
Now I deleted all your math. I am not going to
play games with your math. SR math does not require
4-D. Why should I take your SR math, which is the
same math as LET, and try to prove it is 4-D? Do you
think I am as stupid as you? Only you SR experts
maintain that the math requires 4-D. So this is your
problem, not mine.
And if you really want to show your honesty, let
me see you answer these questions:
1) Do you fully and completely agree with the
concept that LET and SR create for us the same
reality? At least they have the same math, make the
same math predictions, require the same math results?
2) That LET is the correct physics that goes with
the correct math of SR?
3) That SR math is perfectly compatible with an
absolute reference frame?
4) That no test has been made to allow any
scientist to accept SR over LET?
I can think of hundreds of questions that you are
not willing to be honest about. How about making an
effort to set these things right?
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
> Jeff Krimmel (madscie...@hotmail.com) wrote:
<deletes by O'Barr>
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> SR has no reasons to be believed over LET other
>> than for personal reasons.
Jeff Krimmel wrote:
> Not true, as has been repeatedly explained ad
>infinitum around here.
O'Barr comments:
So if this is correct, then give me the number of
standard deviations involved!
You see, there has never been a scientific test to
tell you which theory (LET or SR) is scientifically
acceptable. Never ever! Do you know what this
means? Do you know why there has never been a test?
Do you know anything? It seems as if all the SR
experts are the dumbest thing there is when it comes
to science! And it looks as if you are just as dumb.
Why be that way? Can't you think for yourself?
O'Barr wrote:
>> For any person not to be willing to state such
>>things show that they are prejudiced.
Jeff Krimmel wrote:
> And explain to me, again, how you are not
>"prejudiced" against SR?
O'Barr comments:
I am prejudiced against SR? What a laugh. I
fully and completely support SR math. SR math is
most perfect and correct. Where did you get the idea
that I am against SR? There is nothing about SR math
that I reject. Since it is the same math as LET, it
would be ridiculous for me to say anything wrong
about SR math. Don't you know what is going on
around here? The only thing I get upset about is
when an SR expert says something that is impossible,
like they want to say there is a 4-D spacetime
continuum with no proof or evidence, or that SR math
cannot allow an absolute reference frame!
O'Barr wrote:
>> LET is scientifically superior to SR in
>> every way where a superiority can exist.
Jeff Krimmel wrote:
>This is as absurd a statement as one can make in
>this context.
O'Barr comments:
No it is not. LET has no breaks in its symmetry.
LET has no impossible 4-D spacetime continuums. LET
has no real jumps in time. LET has the simplest
space, simplest time, simplest vector addition of
velocities, the simplest physical approach. LET has
physical causality. LET has everything that makes it
fully and completely knowable, workable (doable),
understandable, and logical. Now we cannot say that
LET has the best math, since they have the same math.
Therefore, in this area, we cannot assign a
superiority. But in all the other areas that I know
about, LET is clearly the winner. Is there any part
of this that you do not understand? LET has the same
math, makes the same math predictions as SR, and
requires the same math results. Again, is there
anything you do not understand about any of this?
It is as simple as it can be!
O'Barr wrote:
>> Any we will see this thought
>> accepted right here on this net!
Jeff Krimmel wrote:
>Obviously this thought has already been accepted, by
>you. The rest will continue to make their own
>evaluations, hopefully on statements much more
>scientifically-minded than your "LET is
>scientifically superior to SR in every way where a
>superiority can exist."
O'Barr comments:
I am not making personal judgments here. I am a
physicist, and I am making the best judgment possible
for the facts as they are now known. No one can go
against what is being said here without being
completely dumb. And you must know this. It is more
than clear, and we will not allow anyone around us to
be dumb any more.
Thanks for reading.
And I am serious, how many standard deviations are
there in the scientific test that 'proves' SR to be
the accepted theory over LET? If you cannot answer
this, then you will be lying if you ever again say
that SR is a scientific choice over LET!
xxein
xxein: It is a weak arguement for/to those of a belief. But you have
hit the Achilles heel. It would force the second postulate into
stressing 'measured as TWLS' in the 'local' inertial frame of
subjective measurement, instead of the preached OWLS for each and
every inertial observer. It would in no way deny that sol is
299792458.2 (or whatever #), but it would clarify those conditions of
measurement as being 'naturally presented' as a result of a 'real'
physics and not as the result of the 'imaginative constructs' being
expressed as 'the one and only' math needed for the theory choice.
The SR math will still work for the subjective measurement, of course,
but its recognizable expansion into a 'real' physical environment will
be hard to overlook (if only they 'would' look).
But that was about SR. If the second postulate of SR is not implicit
in GR, then let somebody tell me about it! It seems that GR employs a
math that is not inconsistant to SR and I know that GR is a math that
does not employ SR math, but the impliciteness of the second postulate
for inertial observers is still explicitly there in the math. But
that's 'all a believer's math' and not physics'.
General statements:
'A' philosophy is necessary to any and all scientific endeavors if you
wish to understand them. 'Another' philosophy is unnecessary and of
disregard if you are already a believer in your philosophy.
Philosophy is a necessary evil until and unless you truly know this
universe and beyond for what it is.
Gerald, you know by now that gravity is not some spalling event(s). I
am going to email you so that we might exchange some info and ideas.
Bilge
>
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnbvrhdp....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Harry:
>> >
>> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnbvqqef....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >SNIP
>> >> > So Bilge, please quote to me the date, time,
>> >> >place and experiment, and the number of standard
>> >> >deviations, that separate out for us SR from LET!
>> >> >Let us see you be scientific!
>> >>
>> >> OK. Find me a few examples of calculations from articles
>> >> published in peer reviewd scientific journals in which the
>> >> author declares the calculations were made using LET and
>> >> gives examples of the calculations. Once you do that, then
>> >> we can be exact.
>> >
>> >Dear Bilge, recently I provided two reference to two papers on this
>subject.
>>
>> OK, then post the numbers calculated via the ether along with some
>> of the details which illustrate how the ether was used so we can compare
>> the reults to a relativistic calculation.
>
>The calculations are the same I think - what matters is the
>basis for them.
the ether cranks seem to think completes the equivalence between
the the two theories. I'm asking for precisely the calculations
that rely upon exploiting the underlying ontology. For example,
the relativistic energy and momentum is given by E^2 = p^2 + m^2,
which is just the relativistic wave equation if you insert E = i\hbar d/dt
and p = -i\hbar\grad. I don't care about that. I'm sure that everyone
and his dog could handwave some ether theory with which to kid them-
selves. I want to see someone justify this wave equation:
E = a.p + bm
such that,
E^2 = (a.p + bm)^2
= (a.p)^2 + (ab + ba).pm + (bm)^2
= p^2 + m^2
When written in covariant form, the \gamma matrices are defined by
\gamma^0 = b, \gamma^i = ba^i
so that the original wave equation is,
(i\hbar\gamma^u d_u - m)\psi = 0
Now, the \gamma satisfy the following relations,
{\gamma^u, \gamma^v} = 2g^uv
[\gamma^u, \gamma^v] = -2i\sigma^uv
The g^uv in the first equation is the metric tensor. That relation
comes from insisting this wave equation be _invariant_ under a
spacetime displacement. Thus, the conditions on this wave equation
are easily understood in terms of invariance (which is not a property
of LET, although I'm sure someone will say they can reinterpret it
that way using the tired old argument of lorentz). So, I don't care
about that aspect of the equation, either.
The second relation, however, is different. It also describes
the spacetime structure of special relativity. From it and the
metric tensor, one obtains the electron spin. I want to see
this described in terms of an ether. Ideally, those who support
some sort of claim about vortices, would start with the definition
of vorticity and obtain the wave equation above and show that
the same relations follow along with their interpretation in
terms of whatever the ether is supposed "physically" do, since
that seems to be the ether advocates' mantra.
I personally don't believe they can do it, since (1) the solutions
include "waves" with negative energies, which in terms of spacetime
symmetries, means anti-particles, (2) the electron spin is not a three-d
rotation, so I fail to see how a fluid is going to describe it, (3)
another spacetime symmetry is reflection, which is a spatial inversion
followed by a rotation. This symmetry is known as one of the "improper"
lorentz transforms. What does this transformation mean for a fluid?
Macroscopic objects do not have this property, but elementary particles
do. (4) From the \gamma matrices and symmetry, one can formally show that
the interactions between particles is limited to only five types of
potentials.
What I'm interested in seeing is someone explain these things
using the ether as the basis for obtaining them. That will cut
through the canned responses that everyone knows from century
old physics.
My argument against the ether is that the only reason the physics
associated with what I've written above ever came about, is that the
entire ontology associated with the ether was abandoned in favor of
invariance principles. The calculations are not the same (at least not
until someone derives them from the ether rather than spacetime symmetries
and invariance arguments and shows the equivalence). So, what I am asking
for is that these things be obtained with arguments involving the ether.
What I've given above forms the basis for the entire standard model of the
weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions, so an ether theory should
start with the ether to obtain those spacetime symmetries above, too. All
anyone ever posts are the arguments describing the physics before everyone
dumped the ether in favor of relativity. It's not unreasonable to expect
someone to show why the ether would given the same physics, since none of
the above appears to be obvious in terms of fluid mechanics. Ether
advocates even have the benefit of hindsight here. The ether was abandon,
because physics makes a lot more sense without it.
[...]
>> It's impossible to reject special relativity if all you assume about the
>> theories is equivalence based upon the lorentz transforms. The mathematics
>> is so simple. Since rotations are half of the lorentz transforms and
>> obtained with exactly the same math, it can't be logically inconsistent.
>
>I have never seen a proof that mathematical consistency always guarantees
>logical consistency for what is modelled.
Mathematical consistency is logical consistency. The only issue is
whether the mathematics describes the physics.
[...]
>> Unless those are online, I'm not going to be able read them until I
>> get around to going to library (and remember to find those particular
>> articles). Is there anything in there that makes use of any ontology
>> which could lead to a theory (and prediction) for any phenomenon
>> that differs from a prediction made without the ontology? If not,
>> the ontology isn't being used.
>
>1) compares LET (SRT-Lorentz) with "SRT", meaning SRT-Einstein. Those are
>completely different ontologies which are claimed to lead to the same
>predictions.
Does it do what I asked above? What I asked above is only the
simplest of the types of questions for which there should be
some explanation in terms of the ether's ontology. It get's more
difficult. For example, in terms of an ether, why should invariance
under an SU(3) symmetry give me 8 gluons?
>2) uses SRT and concludes from the absoluteness character of acceleration
>forces the existence of a physical inertial reference frame - kind of
>reverse engineering, deriving a hidden ontology from the laws.
These are all the mundane things which are of no interest whatsoever.
Give me something that relates to physics being done this and the
last century.
Bilge
to produce some science in order to do so, you bail out.
Gerald L. O'Barr
I asked for a date, time, place, test, and number of
standard deviations obtained showing SR to be more acceptable
than LET. Since you did not do this,
***IN FACT, NO ONE CAN DO THIS!***
then you are not being
scientific. Therefore, be as dumb as you want. It can no
longer be important what you say. You have no science for
your position!
Bilge
>> a different personality trait. I know more accept your biased notion
>> of "biogtry" than your biased notion of anything else.
>
>If you believe you can derive the Lorentz transforms solely by assuming the
>speed of light in interstellar space is constant and independent of the
>motion of the emitter plus the Principle of Relativity, without any other
>unwarranted assumptions, then I invite you to do so, here.
I happen to have that derivation from previous posts. Now go away.
>It is your claim, after all. I think it is you that is conning us,
>so let us see if you realize the jig is up.
Fortunately, I don't have to derive them again (since I wouldn't
have done so - it's your claim that there's an inconsistency).
From a previous post of mine:
Consider a vector X = (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3). The length of that vector is
defined from the inner product X^2 = g_ij X_i X_j. Here, I've used all
lower indicies to indicate that I do not assume anything about the metric
tensor and that this is a general inner product. I'll obtain the proper
metric tensor further down. Then, the first postulate requires that the
vector X be unchanged by an infinitessimal displacement:
X -> X' = X + \delta X = IX + aX
so that,
X'^2 = (IX + aX)^2 = (IX)^2 + (Ia + aI)X^2 + O(a^2)
where I is the identity and aX is an ifinitessimal displacement. In
component notation, I have:
X^u' = [g^u'_u + a^u'_u] X^u
I've reverted to upper and lower indicies for convenience, but this
implies nothing about the metric. That remains to be obtained. The general
inner product, must then be g_u'v' X^u' X^v'
g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = g_u'v' [g^u'_u + a^u'_u][g^v'_v + a^v'_v] X^u X^v
If I multiply that out, I get:
g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v
+ g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v
+ O(a^2)
For the two vectors to have the same length in both frames (and hence,
leave the laws of physics unchanged), the quantity:
X'^2 - X^2 = 0
so that:
g_u'v' X^u' X^v' - (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
and summing over repeated indicies:
X_v' X^v' - g_uv X^u X^v = 0
X_v' X^v' - X_v X^v = 0
that requires the second term to vanish:
g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
g_u'v a^u'_u + g_v'u a^v'_v = 0
or:
a_vu + a_uv = 0 => a_uv = -a_vu.
Therefore, the transformation must be anti-symmetric. Since there are
4 values each index can take, there are 16 compoments, but only 6 are
independent. The diagonal terms have to be zero leaving 12 components
and terms like a_12 are equal to -a_21, leaving only 6 independent
numbers.
Each component corresponds an infintessimal transformation along
a different direction, so to construct a finite transformation, we
can take one of the a_uv and construct a finite transform from m
infinitessimal transforms in the limit that m->\infinity. You will get
the same form as for a 3-d rotation, since in fact, 3 of the 6 transforms
will be just that - 3-d rotations:
X' = lim \prod (I + A.n/m)^m X = \exp^(A)
m->\infty m
(where I've left of the indicies and written the displacement as
a vector A in the direction n with A.n/m infinitessimal in the
limit. Depending upon g_uv, we will have solutions which are
sines and cosines or sinh amd cosh or some mixture of the two.
There are only 3 possibilities for g_uv. All of the diagonal elements are
the same sign, two of the diagonal elements are + and two are -, or 1
element is + and the others - (the other possibility of 3 elements + and 1
- is equivalent). Since the spatial part of a vector has a length,
r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2, the only two possible metrics are are all four
+ signs or 1 plus and 3 - signs (1 - and 3 + signs is equivalent).
For spatial rotations, the diagonal elements are -1, so that the
product above gives for the x-y plane:
x' = cos(A)[x + y tan(A)]
y' = cos(A)[y - x tan(A)]
For rotations in the x-t, the element of the metric is +1, which
gives:
x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
Androcles
[snip, cutting to the quick]
> For rotations in the x-t, the element of the metric is +1, which
> gives:
>
> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>
> which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
>
That's very clever. Let me see....
x t A cosh(A) tanh(A) t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
1.00 0.00 3.14 11.59 1.00 -11.55
I see you've rotated time backwards.
Well done, I congratulate you on your time machine.
"Back to the Future", here we come!
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:v49Mb.14590$6L3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegTime.html
"Negative time? Impossible!"
Dirk Vdm
Cesar Sirvent
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
news:v49Mb.14590$6L3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Androcles, negative times are not only possible, are NECESSARY if you have
x=x'=0 at t=t'=0 (usual LT).
The reason is the relativity of simultaneity, i.e., simultaneous events in
S are not simultaneous for S'. That way, for two spatially separated events
happening at t=0 for S, one event can happen at negative time for S' if it
lies in the region where x>0. (see equivalent t' = gamma (t - v/c^2*x)
and put x=0 and later x>0). No time machines, you see....
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Bilge, neat post...
[snip Andro]
>Fortunately, I don't have to derive them again (since I wouldn't
>have done so - it's your claim that there's an inconsistency).
>From a previous post of mine:
>
>Consider a vector X = (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3). The length of that vector is
>defined from the inner product X^2 = g_ij X_i X_j. Here, I've used all
>lower indicies to indicate that I do not assume anything about the metric
>tensor and that this is a general inner product.
>I'll obtain the proper metric tensor further down.
I don't see anywhere why you don't use the proper
form for X^2 to begin with. (?).
>Then, the first postulate requires that the
>vector X be unchanged by an infinitessimal displacement:
>
> X -> X' = X + \delta X = IX + aX
>
>so that,
>
> X'^2 = (IX + aX)^2 = (IX)^2 + (Ia + aI)X^2 + O(a^2)
Why introduce "O" ?
>where I is the identity and aX is an ifinitessimal displacement. In
>component notation, I have:
>
> X^u' = [g^u'_u + a^u'_u] X^u
Is g^u_u the Kronecker Delta?
This is a confusing form can you use
X^u' = [g^u'_v + a^u'_v] X^v ?
(I'm confused also about summation convention).
>I've reverted to upper and lower indicies for convenience, but this
>implies nothing about the metric. That remains to be obtained. The general
>inner product, must then be g_u'v' X^u' X^v'
>
>g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = g_u'v' [g^u'_u + a^u'_u][g^v'_v + a^v'_v] X^u X^v
>
>If I multiply that out, I get:
>
>g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v
>
> + g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v
>
> + O(a^2)
>
> For the two vectors to have the same length in both frames (and hence,
>leave the laws of physics unchanged), the quantity:
>
> X'^2 - X^2 = 0
Does this imply magnitude \delta x =0 ?
>so that:
>
> g_u'v' X^u' X^v' - (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
>
>and summing over repeated indicies:
>
> X_v' X^v' - g_uv X^u X^v = 0
>
> X_v' X^v' - X_v X^v = 0
>
>that requires the second term to vanish:
>
> g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
>
> g_u'v a^u'_u + g_v'u a^v'_v = 0
>
>or:
>
> a_vu + a_uv = 0 => a_uv = -a_vu.
Is this related to the Killing condition?
>Therefore, the transformation must be anti-symmetric. Since there are
>4 values each index can take, there are 16 compoments, but only 6 are
>independent. The diagonal terms have to be zero leaving 12 components
>and terms like a_12 are equal to -a_21, leaving only 6 independent
>numbers.
Would it be sensible to set an invariant
a^2 = g^uv a_uv which is of course zero?
>Each component corresponds an infintessimal transformation along
>a different direction, so to construct a finite transformation, we
>can take one of the a_uv and construct a finite transform from m
>infinitessimal transforms in the limit that m->\infinity. You will get
>the same form as for a 3-d rotation, since in fact, 3 of the 6 transforms
>will be just that - 3-d rotations:
>
> X' = lim \prod (I + A.n/m)^m X = \exp^(A)
> m->\infty m
>
>(where I've left of the indicies and written the displacement as
>a vector A in the direction n with A.n/m infinitessimal in the
>limit.
Just a thought but, this looks to me like
\delta x = $ ds = constant ($= integral)
and ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v =0
>Depending upon g_uv, we will have solutions which are
>sines and cosines or sinh amd cosh or some mixture of the two.
>
>There are only 3 possibilities for g_uv. All of the diagonal elements are
>the same sign, two of the diagonal elements are + and two are -, or 1
>element is + and the others - (the other possibility of 3 elements + and 1
>- is equivalent). Since the spatial part of a vector has a length,
>r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2, the only two possible metrics are are all four
>+ signs or 1 plus and 3 - signs (1 - and 3 + signs is equivalent).
>For spatial rotations, the diagonal elements are -1, so that the
>product above gives for the x-y plane:
>
> x' = cos(A)[x + y tan(A)]
> y' = cos(A)[y - x tan(A)]
>
>For rotations in the x-t, the element of the metric is +1, which
>gives:
>
> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>
>which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
Very nice article Bilge, did you formulate this
yourself (ie. is this an original formulation on
your part, or is it an extraction from a reference)?
Thanks, Ken S. Tucker
Michael Varney
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v49Mb.14590$6L3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
*blink*
Bilge
enough to take seriously? Find an article comparing newtonian gravity
to the tooth fairy in a scientific journal which meets the same
criteria you gave. Otherwise you have to accept the tooth fairy as
equivalent to newtonian gravity.
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
>
>Hi Bilge, neat post...
>[snip Andro]
>
>>Fortunately, I don't have to derive them again (since I wouldn't
>>have done so - it's your claim that there's an inconsistency).
>>From a previous post of mine:
>>
>>Consider a vector X = (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3). The length of that vector is
>>defined from the inner product X^2 = g_ij X_i X_j. Here, I've used all
>>lower indicies to indicate that I do not assume anything about the metric
>>tensor and that this is a general inner product.
>
>>I'll obtain the proper metric tensor further down.
>
>I don't see anywhere why you don't use the proper form for X^2 to begin
>with. (?).
not to make things appear too unfamiliar. I do that a lot. Someone
who grasps the idea of geometry in general, already knows that relativity
is self-consistent.
>>Then, the first postulate requires that the
>>vector X be unchanged by an infinitessimal displacement:
>>
>> X -> X' = X + \delta X = IX + aX
>>
>>so that,
>>
>> X'^2 = (IX + aX)^2 = (IX)^2 + (Ia + aI)X^2 + O(a^2)
>
>Why introduce "O" ?
It means "Order a^2", indicating the the term belongs with the next
order in the expansion. The expansion above was truncated at first
order since the displacement is infinitessimal. Infinitessimals to
powers greater than 1 are irrelevant.
>>where I is the identity and aX is an ifinitessimal displacement. In
>>component notation, I have:
>>
>> X^u' = [g^u'_u + a^u'_u] X^u
>
>Is g^u_u the Kronecker Delta?
Eventually, Yes.
>
>This is a confusing form can you use
>
>X^u' = [g^u'_v + a^u'_v] X^v ?
No, that's even more confusing because then you need even more indicies.
>
>(I'm confused also about summation convention).
Repeated indicies are summed over.
>
>>I've reverted to upper and lower indicies for convenience, but this
>>implies nothing about the metric. That remains to be obtained. The general
>>inner product, must then be g_u'v' X^u' X^v'
>>
>>g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = g_u'v' [g^u'_u + a^u'_u][g^v'_v + a^v'_v] X^u X^v
>>
>>If I multiply that out, I get:
>>
>>g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v
>>
>> + g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v
>>
>> + O(a^2)
>>
>> For the two vectors to have the same length in both frames (and hence,
>>leave the laws of physics unchanged), the quantity:
>>
>> X'^2 - X^2 = 0
>
>Does this imply magnitude \delta x =0 ?
Yes, if you mean x as the variation in the vector X.
>>so that:
>>
>> g_u'v' X^u' X^v' - (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
>>
>>and summing over repeated indicies:
>>
>> X_v' X^v' - g_uv X^u X^v = 0
>>
>> X_v' X^v' - X_v X^v = 0
>>
>>that requires the second term to vanish:
>>
>> g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
>>
>> g_u'v a^u'_u + g_v'u a^v'_v = 0
>>
>>or:
>>
>> a_vu + a_uv = 0 => a_uv = -a_vu.
>
>Is this related to the Killing condition?
Yes.
>>Therefore, the transformation must be anti-symmetric. Since there are
>>4 values each index can take, there are 16 compoments, but only 6 are
>>independent. The diagonal terms have to be zero leaving 12 components
>>and terms like a_12 are equal to -a_21, leaving only 6 independent
>>numbers.
>
>Would it be sensible to set an invariant
>
>a^2 = g^uv a_uv which is of course zero?
That doesn't guarantee a_uv is anti-symmetric. That only gurantees
that a^u_u is zero, which could be trivially true if all sixteen
components of a^uv are zero.
>
>Just a thought but, this looks to me like
>
>\delta x = $ ds = constant ($= integral)
>
>and ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v =0
No, s = \integral sqrt(g_uv dx^u dx^v)
Then you displace x^u, x^v and require the variation to be zero.
[...]
>> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>>
>>which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
>
>Very nice article Bilge, did you formulate this
>yourself (ie. is this an original formulation on
>your part, or is it an extraction from a reference)?
I'd have to say that it's a combination since I basically did it a few
times as part of some homework problems in graduate school. So, the idea
isn't original, but I've adapted the generic derivation to better suit the
context of this newsgroup, in which the least interesting parts of the
derivation that normally wouldn't be considered the point are the parts
that receive the most objections from the kook constituency. Normally one
doesn't need to spend half of the derivation justifying the signature of
the metric just because it differs from the one they've taken for granted
without realizing it. In this newsgroup, most people thing the minus sign
is some sort of mathematical trick and that a euclidean metric isn't, only
because they never realized they were using a metric which is based on the
same assumptions that the minkowski metric is based - the geometry agrees
with what we observe. So, all the attempts to justify g_uv are mine,
created for the sole reason of trying to insure that whomever is
going to object, realizes that they are going to be objecting to euclidean
geometry at the same time.
David Canzi
Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnc02102....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
>> gives:
>>
>> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>>
>> which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
>>
>That's very clever. Let me see....
> x t A cosh(A) tanh(A) t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>
> 1.00 0.00 3.14 11.59 1.00 -11.55
>I see you've rotated time backwards.
"Sir, (a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists! Respond." -- Euler,
using a dishonest argument to silence the atheist Diderot.
--
David Canzi -- dmcanzi...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca
Gerald L. O'Barr
I am sorry, Bilge. You are first, not me. You have made
the decision to accept SR. This is an act you have already
done. Therefore, your act needs to be justified. Did you
make a scientific decision or not? If you had no science
to your decision, then it was not a scientific decision.
If you have made this decision, then state the science!
Give me your number of standard deviations between SR
and LET! If you cannot do this, or will not do
this, then it is clear to me what you did!
It is that simple.
Thanks for reading.
Paul B. Andersen
> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> Ref: <e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
> <13697-3FF...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net>
> <e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
> <btj3je$d5s$1...@dolly.uninett.no>
> <_t9Lb.6248$d27....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
> <e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
>
> <deletes>
>
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >...> What is a "physical theory"?
> >...> How can a theory be physical?
> >...> Can you give an example of such a theory?
>
> <deletes by O'Barr>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> An example of a physical theory is PV = nRT. With
> this theory, you start out with physical assumptions,
> and from these physical assumptions, you develop the
> math.
I see.
So since SR starts with the physical assumptions
that "the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames",
and "the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source",
then SR is a "physical theory".
Lorentz ether theory of 1904, OTOH, is simply based on
finding the mathematical transform that make Maxwell's
equation invariant - with no other justification.
So LET is a "math theory".
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Speed of events" make no sense.
Paul
Androcles
> Ken S. Tucker:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
> >
> >Hi Bilge, neat post...
> >[snip Andro]
> >
> >>Fortunately, I don't have to derive them again (since I wouldn't
> >>have done so - it's your claim that there's an inconsistency).
> >>From a previous post of mine:
> >>
> >>Consider a vector X = (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3). The length of that vector
is
> >>defined from the inner product X^2 = g_ij X_i X_j. Here, I've used all
> >>lower indicies to indicate that I do not assume anything about the
metric
> >>tensor and that this is a general inner product.
> >
> >>I'll obtain the proper metric tensor further down.
> >
> >I don't see anywhere why you don't use the proper form for X^2 to begin
> >with. (?).
>
> Because I had to adapt the notation for androcles' benefit, so as
> not to make things appear too unfamiliar. I do that a lot. Someone
> who grasps the idea of geometry in general, already knows that relativity
> is self-consistent.
Not so. Bilge has made the assumption g_ij, pulled from a hat.
It matters not how the problem is approached, the mathematics
must be consistent, and not assumptive.
I address the origin of special relativity in Einstein's paper, and I find
inconsistency.
That may piss people off, but I don't care about that.
Human emotion has no place in physics; if you want to study it become
a psychologist.
The fact remains that Einstein's
x'/(c+v) is not Einstein's
x'/[(c+v)/(1+v/c)]
whatever you may take those symbols to mean.
The fact remains that you have no sensible argument,
whatever you may think of me as a person, for this:
"The speed of light is c for all inertial observers."
It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set by
the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart it
to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon which
we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we may
both observe it to be the same?
And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the opposing
wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
they be of equal motion to me?
And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of light
from all candles be the same?
I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for it
is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
concept without mathematics, but gently, for it shall surely confound me and
cause my head to ache.
And the fact remains that neither of you are truly objective scientists.
Sad, but true.
Androcles
Peter Kinane
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:bttpng$82r$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> "Speed of events" make no sense.
>
Good point.
Re "I find that it makes better sense to think of time as the
consequences- -events of interactive forces.": In effect, events am
time (Time- -Being).
Re "I find that it would make better sense to use clocks as a standard
speed of events.": Perhaps I would have been clearer in saying, as
elsewhere, that I find that it would make better sense to use clocks
as a standard movement speed (an SMS) against which to relate other
events- -movements. However, the point seems to be the same.
Perhaps you are inclined to delve into the philosophy. If so, this is
fair enough - indeed welcome. But there is a rather vast amount
concentrated in my opening, and further along:
"Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces. With further
development: Indefinite and dynamic Man- -Ground in tension with
moving animal/object - Time- -Being".
Restoring a snip:
* > A tip from good philosophy, in contrast to classical nonsense:
> A concept does not translate or transfer across systems- -models - it
> transforms. *
Edit:
A concept does not translate or transfer across systems- -models - it
transforms. Sometimes it simply does not even feature in another
model. For example, the concept of walking- -sailing over the edge of
the world, in the flat earth model, does not feature in the modern
model.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
Androcles
"David Canzi" <dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:btshsu$c2h$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
proof when he was actually asked to derive 'A'.
Androcles
Harry
I would say that in this context a mathematical theory only covers the
mathematics of a theory in physics.
Physics is more than mathematics, and a full theory also answers the
question "why" to at least one deeper level of understanding.
For example, Newton proposed gravity as cause of the movement of planets. Of
course, the next question is what is gravity, but without proposing a
general pulling action called gravity as cause but just the equations it
would be only a mathematical theory.
Harald
ste...@nomail.com
: I would say that in this context a mathematical theory only covers the
: mathematics of a theory in physics.
: Physics is more than mathematics, and a full theory also answers the
: question "why" to at least one deeper level of understanding.
: For example, Newton proposed gravity as cause of the movement of planets. Of
: course, the next question is what is gravity, but without proposing a
: general pulling action called gravity as cause but just the equations it
: would be only a mathematical theory.
: Harald
But that applies to any theory. From what I've gathered, people
use "physical" to describe a theory that is fundamentally based
on little billiard balls bouncing off of each other. However noone
ever proposes a mechanism for how and why those billiard balls bounce
off each other. They just assume that they do for some unknown reason.
Clearly it is nothing like the mechanism that causes real billiard balls
to bounce off of each other.
Stephen
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnc03jfi....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Ken S. Tucker:
>> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
>> >
>> >Hi Bilge, neat post...
>> >[snip Andro]
>> >
>> >>Fortunately, I don't have to derive them again (since I wouldn't
>> >>have done so - it's your claim that there's an inconsistency).
>> >>From a previous post of mine:
>> >>
>> >>Consider a vector X = (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3). The length of that vector
>is
>> >>defined from the inner product X^2 = g_ij X_i X_j. Here, I've used all
>> >>lower indicies to indicate that I do not assume anything about the
>metric
>> >>tensor and that this is a general inner product.
>> >
>> >>I'll obtain the proper metric tensor further down.
>> >
>> >I don't see anywhere why you don't use the proper form for X^2 to begin
>> >with. (?).
>>
>> Because I had to adapt the notation for androcles' benefit, so as
>> not to make things appear too unfamiliar. I do that a lot. Someone
>> who grasps the idea of geometry in general, already knows that relativity
>> is self-consistent.
>
>Not so. Bilge has made the assumption g_ij, pulled from a hat.
"dot" product for two vectors,
Bilge
>"David Canzi" <dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>news:btshsu$c2h$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> In article <v49Mb.14590$6L3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnc02102....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >
>> >> For rotations in the x-t, the element of the metric is +1, which
>> >> gives:
>> >>
>> >> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>> >> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>> >>
>> >> which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
>> >>
>> >That's very clever. Let me see....
>> > x t A cosh(A) tanh(A) t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>> >
>> > 1.00 0.00 3.14 11.59 1.00 -11.55
>> >I see you've rotated time backwards.
>>
>> "Sir, (a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists! Respond." -- Euler,
>> using a dishonest argument to silence the atheist Diderot.
>It is somewhat amazing that Bilge can pull 'A' out of a hat and claim a
>proof when he was actually asked to derive 'A'.
So, in other words, what you're telling me is that the coordinate
transformation,
x' = x cos(A) + y sin(A)
y' = y cos(A) - x sin(A)
is mathematicaally inconsistent? That should be news to a lot of people.
Bilge
special relativity and LET are incompatible and that LET fails to
address any deeper level of understanding. The _physics_ in special
relativity is responsible for the progress made in physics over the
last century, especially since the formal connection of conservation
laws in physics was associated with physical symmetries by noether
in 1918.
>For example, Newton proposed gravity as cause of the movement of planets. Of
>course, the next question is what is gravity, but without proposing a
>general pulling action called gravity as cause but just the equations it
>would be only a mathematical theory.
It is still only a mathematical theory. The notion of "pulling" has no
physical definition. Had newton realized that his restriction on inertial
motion to "straight lines" was circular, and that "straight" only has
meaning in the context of the geometry that defines it, general relativity
would be considered "natural", today. Unfortunately, newton had to invent
the math needed by riemann and others to develop the math needed for
general relativity, which didn't happen for a long time.
Androcles
If course it is consistent, x' and y' can be negative. That's just a
rotation for a circle. I have no objection to it, nor do I object to a
rotation in a conic.
What is not sense is you trying to make time negative, but that isn't really
news to a relativist.
You should read up on the ten axioms of a vector space, and learn the
subgroups with the operator multiplication that has 1 as an identity and
addition that has 0 as an identity, then tell me what the identity for time
is before you try to tell anyone about your knowledge of mathematics, let
alone your logic in confusing the set of real numbers with time.
Not only that, but you have not even attempted to give a derivation for the
angle A, merely pulled it out of a hat. What is the physical analogue of A
that you are trying to show?
Androcles
Androcles
trailed of with a comma, gone to think about it.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:NPDMb.16$y7...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Androcles sets his clock to zero now, so Androcles cannot
consider events that happened 3 seconds ago. Bravo!
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegTime.html
Brilliant - even for a troll.
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
>
>Ken S. Tucker:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
> >
> >Hi Bilge, neat post...
> >[snip Andro]
> >
> >>Fortunately, I don't have to derive them again (since I wouldn't
> >>have done so - it's your claim that there's an inconsistency).
> >>From a previous post of mine:
> >>
> >>Consider a vector X = (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3). The length of that vector is
> >>defined from the inner product X^2 = g_ij X_i X_j. Here, I've used all
> >>lower indicies to indicate that I do not assume anything about the metric
> >>tensor and that this is a general inner product.
> >>I'll obtain the proper metric tensor further down.
> >
> >I don't see anywhere why you don't use the proper form for X^2 to begin
> >with. (?).
>
> Because I had to adapt the notation for androcles' benefit, so as
>not to make things appear too unfamiliar. I do that a lot. Someone
>who grasps the idea of geometry in general, already knows that relativity
>is self-consistent.
If the reader is unfamiliar with X^2 = g_uvX^u X^v
the use of [sic] X^2 = g_uv X_u X_v won't help.
> >>Then, the first postulate requires that the
> >>vector X be unchanged by an infinitessimal displacement:
> >>
> >> X -> X' = X + \delta X = IX + aX
> >>
> >>so that,
> >>
> >> X'^2 = (IX + aX)^2 = (IX)^2 + (Ia + aI)X^2 + O(a^2)
> >
> >Why introduce "O" ?
>
> It means "Order a^2", indicating the the term belongs with the next
>order in the expansion. The expansion above was truncated at first
>order since the displacement is infinitessimal. Infinitessimals to
>powers greater than 1 are irrelevant.
Well that's true and standard, except that you
re-introduced "O" below. Generally the "O" is
discarded in the first place as you say.
> >>where I is the identity and aX is an ifinitessimal displacement. In
> >>component notation, I have:
> >>
> >> X^u' = [g^u'_u + a^u'_u] X^u
> >
> >Is g^u_u the Kronecker Delta?
>
> Eventually, Yes.
Nice, I'm going to use g^u_v as the Kronecker
from now on.
> >This is a confusing form can you use
> >
> >X^u' = [g^u'_v + a^u'_v] X^v ?
>
> No, that's even more confusing because then you need even more indicies.
You have used (expertly IMHO) primes on indices
I haven't seen before in this NG, and you are collapsing
indices (inner product) at the same time. While I see no
error, it's a real brain bender.
> >(I'm confused also about summation convention).
> Repeated indicies are summed over.
I haven't found one that isn't.
> >>I've reverted to upper and lower indicies for convenience, but this
> >>implies nothing about the metric. That remains to be obtained. The general
> >>inner product, must then be g_u'v' X^u' X^v'
> >>g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = g_u'v' [g^u'_u + a^u'_u][g^v'_v + a^v'_v] X^u X^v
> >>If I multiply that out, I get:
> >>g_u'v' X^u' X^v' = (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v
> >> + g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v
>>> + O(a^2)
It was the re-introduction of the "O" with the invariant
"a" that screwed me up, but I understand now.
> >> For the two vectors to have the same length in both frames (and hence,
> >>leave the laws of physics unchanged), the quantity:
> >>
> >> X'^2 - X^2 = 0
> >
> >Does this imply magnitude \delta x =0 ?
> Yes, if you mean x as the variation in the vector X.
Sorry I should have written that,
\delta X as you introduced far above.
Remarkable that the asymmetry below, (a_uv) results from
a theoretical displacement \delta X =0
Isn't that the same as having two CS's with origins
at the same point, relatively rotating?
> >>so that:
>>> g_u'v' X^u' X^v' - (g_u'v' g^u'_u g^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
> >>
> >>and summing over repeated indicies:
> >>
> >> X_v' X^v' - g_uv X^u X^v = 0
> >>
> >> X_v' X^v' - X_v X^v = 0
> >>
> >>that requires the second term to vanish:
> >>
> >> g_u'v'(a^u'_u g^v'_v + g^u'_u a^v'_v) X^u X^v = 0
> >>
> >> g_u'v a^u'_u + g_v'u a^v'_v = 0
and
> >> a_vu + a_uv = 0 => a_uv = -a_vu.
> >
> >Is this related to the Killing condition?
> Yes.
pg 375 in Weinbergs "Grav and Cosmo"...
> >>Therefore, the transformation must be anti-symmetric. Since there are
> >>4 values each index can take, there are 16 compoments, but only 6 are
> >>independent. The diagonal terms have to be zero leaving 12 components
> >>and terms like a_12 are equal to -a_21, leaving only 6 independent
> >>numbers.
> >
> >Would it be sensible to set an invariant
> >
> >a^2 = g^uv a_uv which is of course zero?
>
> That doesn't guarantee a_uv is anti-symmetric. That only gurantees
>that a^u_u is zero, which could be trivially true if all sixteen
>components of a^uv are zero.
right, thanks.
[...]
> >> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> >> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
> >>
> >>which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
> >
> >Very nice article Bilge, did you formulate this
> >yourself (ie. is this an original formulation on
> >your part, or is it an extraction from a reference)?
>
> I'd have to say that it's a combination since I basically did it a few
>times as part of some homework problems in graduate school. So, the idea
>isn't original, but I've adapted the generic derivation to better suit the
>context of this newsgroup, in which the least interesting parts of the
>derivation that normally wouldn't be considered the point are the parts
>that receive the most objections from the kook constituency. Normally one
>doesn't need to spend half of the derivation justifying the signature of
>the metric just because it differs from the one they've taken for granted
>without realizing it. In this newsgroup, most people thing the minus sign
>is some sort of mathematical trick and that a euclidean metric isn't, only
>because they never realized they were using a metric which is based on the
>same assumptions that the minkowski metric is based - the geometry agrees
>with what we observe. So, all the attempts to justify g_uv are mine,
>created for the sole reason of trying to insure that whomever is
>going to object, realizes that they are going to be objecting to euclidean
>geometry at the same time.
Well I certainly recognized a lot of hard work and
innovative symbolism in your post (such as priming
on the indices), also glad you enabled the positive
metric signature.
In S. Weinberg's " Grav and Cosmo", pg 395,
"Spaces with Maximally Symmetric Subspaces",
he concludes on pg.404,
"The beautiful thing we have learned is that the
metric can be derived solely from the assumption
of homogeneity and isotropy, with no use of the
Einstein Field Equations."
So Bilge, in view of the provided references,
and your certain resolve on Killing vector's
applications to Space Time, and EFE's,
would you agree with Weinberg's assessment?
This is exciting, because the Killing vectors
conserve energy, and - due to asymmetry
permit EM...like asymetrical g_0i 's etc.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
David Canzi
Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for it
>is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
>concept without mathematics, but gently, for it shall surely confound me and
>cause my head to ache.
You would never ask for a mathematics-free explanation of how far a
dropped object falls in "t" seconds. Why ask for a mathematics-free
explanation of a relativity problem?
Gerald L. O'Barr
Paul B. Andersen (paul.b....@hia.no) wrote:
>In <e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com
>Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <deletes>
>> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
>> An example of a physical theory is PV = nRT.
>> With this theory, you start out with physical
>> assumptions, and from these physical assumptions,
>> you develop the math.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>I see. So since SR starts with the physical
>assumptions that "the laws of nature are the same in
>all inertial frames", and "the speed of light is
>independent of the velocity of the source",
>then SR is a "physical theory". Lorentz ether
>theory of 1904, OTOH, is simply based on finding the
>mathematical transform that make Maxwell's
>equation invariant - with no other justification.
>So LET is a "math theory".
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
So is this suppose to be a joke? LET tells us
exactly what physically happens with clocks and
rulers so that the speed measured for light is c in
every frame. On the other hand, SR does not tell us
what physically happens so that you will measure c in
every frame. It is just a math statement that these
measurements are the way they are.
I guess I ought to take this as a compliment, that
you feel it is so important that SR is a physical
theory, that you will now even lie to try to make it
appear to be a physical theory. Why do you want to
lie about something so simple and so obvious?
Let us go over this in detail: You mention light.
Yes, light is a physical thing. You mention it has
motion. Yes, this is a physical act. So yes, SR
mentions physical things. But at no time do you lay
a physical base that could explain why or how every
frame is able to measure the same velocity. Did you
hear that? SR gives zero information as to how SR
physically works. That is why all the kooks exist.
That is why you even have this special net of
sci.physics.relativity. You have all these problems
because you have no way to explain your SR in any
physical way. And so all those people who demand
these kinds of answers are given impossible
explanations, and they will not and they cannot be
satisfied.
You, Anderson, are a mess. And your theory is a
mess. It is a mess because it is only math, and
being only math, then its interpretation can be
anything. And you allow impossible interpretations.
Since SR math is the same math as LET, then in full
honesty, SR math could be fully and completely and
correctly interpreted exactly as LET interprets the
math. But you don't! You do not even allow this
possibility to be said! Thus, you are prejudiced.
You are no longer able to be seen as a scientific
person! You have lost respect by all! Shame on
you, and the other SR experts who are not willing to
admit to these simple facts as we now know them to
be!
LET is superior to SR, in every way that a
superiority exist between these two approaches. This
does not make LET perfect, but it means what it
means, it is superior to SR.
Thanks for reading.
Androcles
away from is the same as the speed of the light I approach. (If you can)
Androcles
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
>>
>>Ken S. Tucker:
>> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
>> >
>> >Hi Bilge, neat post...
>> >[snip Andro]
>> >
>> >>Fortunately, I don't have to derive them again (since I wouldn't
>> >>have done so - it's your claim that there's an inconsistency).
>> >>From a previous post of mine:
>> >>
>> >>Consider a vector X = (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3). The length of that vector is
>> >>defined from the inner product X^2 = g_ij X_i X_j. Here, I've used all
>> >>lower indicies to indicate that I do not assume anything about the metric
>> >>tensor and that this is a general inner product.
>> >>I'll obtain the proper metric tensor further down.
>> >
>> >I don't see anywhere why you don't use the proper form for X^2 to begin
>> >with. (?).
>>
>> Because I had to adapt the notation for androcles' benefit, so as
>>not to make things appear too unfamiliar. I do that a lot. Someone
>>who grasps the idea of geometry in general, already knows that relativity
>>is self-consistent.
>
>If the reader is unfamiliar with X^2 = g_uvX^u X^v
would look like standard matrix notation and not require knowing
the difference between upper and lower indices.
>the use of [sic] X^2 = g_uv X_u X_v won't help.
You do not use [sic] unless you quote the exact text and that is
_not_ the exact text. My indicies are i and j and writing something
like g_ij X_i X_j is quite common to denote matrices in introductory
linear algebra courses, which is what I targeted for the level of
my response.
[...]
>> >Is g^u_u the Kronecker Delta?
>>
>> Eventually, Yes.
>
>Nice, I'm going to use g^u_v as the Kronecker from now on.
I wouldn't. g^u_u is not the same thing as g^u_v. g^u_u is
a number. g^u_v is a matrix.
>> >This is a confusing form can you use
>> >
>> >X^u' = [g^u'_v + a^u'_v] X^v ?
>>
>> No, that's even more confusing because then you need even more indicies.
>
>You have used (expertly IMHO) primes on indices
>I haven't seen before in this NG, and you are collapsing
>indices (inner product) at the same time. While I see no
>error, it's a real brain bender.
I'm using primes to indicate that u and u' refer to the same index.
There's a distinction between writing X'^u and X^u'. X'^u refers to
a _different vector_ in the _same coordinate system_, while X^u' refers
to the _same vector_ in a _different coordinate system_. The two essen-
tially accomplish the same thing, but the point here was a change of
coordinates. I also took a few liberties converting between them so that
I didn't have to clutter things up with intermediate results containing
even more indicies, ptimes and metric tensors.like:
g_u'v' X^u'X^' = g_u'v' g_u^u' g_v^v' [X^u + a^u_i X^i][X^v + a^v_j X^j]
I didn't quite adhere to the meaning on the primed vs. unprimed
coordinates everywhere.
[...]
>Well I certainly recognized a lot of hard work and
>innovative symbolism in your post (such as priming
>on the indices), also glad you enabled the positive
>metric signature.
> In S. Weinberg's " Grav and Cosmo", pg 395,
>"Spaces with Maximally Symmetric Subspaces",
>he concludes on pg.404,
>
>"The beautiful thing we have learned is that the
>metric can be derived solely from the assumption
>of homogeneity and isotropy, with no use of the
>Einstein Field Equations."
>
>So Bilge, in view of the provided references,
>and your certain resolve on Killing vector's
>applications to Space Time, and EFE's,
>would you agree with Weinberg's assessment?
I'll say that it's nice to know weinberg agrees that one does not
need additioal postulates.
Bilge
Androcles is a troll on a fishing expedition. He wants someone to
make a typo or make an error in some semantics so he can incorporate
it into what he calls a "logical" argument against relativity.
Bilge
Bilge
>"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> If course it is consistent, x' and y' can be negative. That's just a
>> rotation for a circle. I have no objection to it, nor do I object to a
>> rotation in a conic.
>> What is not sense is you trying to make time negative, but that
>> isn't really news to a relativist.
>
>Androcles sets his clock to zero now, so Androcles cannot
>consider events that happened 3 seconds ago. Bravo!
That's probably not androcles' fault. His attention span isn't
long enough to realize there was a "3 seconds ago".
Bilge
You already got one. You won't believe it no matter how many times
you're given an explanation. Face it. Linear algebra is just over
your head. If you can't solve a simple matrix equation after years
of explanations, then you should give up and take up knitting or
basket weaving. Simple arithmetic is just not your thing.
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>> How does one find a comparison, when no one finds LET acceptable
>> enough to take seriously? Find an article comparing newtonian gravity
>> to the tooth fairy in a scientific journal which meets the same
>> criteria you gave. Otherwise you have to accept the tooth fairy as
>> equivalent to newtonian gravity.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> I am sorry, Bilge.
That's not true. If you were sorry, you'd apologize for posting
crap and stop posting it.
>You are first, not me.
OK, since I can't find any article in a scientific journal that
takes let seriously, there is no reason to take it seriously.
Have fun with your tooth fairy theory of gravity. It has been
as well substantiated as let. Now go do something useful like
make left-handed screwdrivers or sharpen bowling balls.
Androcles
So you have to resort to personal abuse since you are unable to answer the
question.
Typical. Another stupid moronic relativist, trapped in an argument he has no
answer for.
Androcles.
Androcles
> David Canzi:
> >In article <97uMb.2184$I31....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
"The velocity of light is c for all inertial observers."
It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set by
the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart it
to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon which
we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we may
both observe it to be the same?
And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the opposing
wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
they be of equal motion to me?
And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of light
from all candles be the same?
> >>I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for
it
> >>is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this
wondrous
> >>concept without mathematics, but gently, for it shall surely confound
me and
> >>cause my head to ache.
> >
> >You would never ask for a mathematics-free explanation of how far a
> >dropped object falls in "t" seconds. Why ask for a mathematics-free
> >explanation of a relativity problem?
>
> Androcles is a troll on a fishing expedition. He wants someone to
> make a typo or make an error in some semantics so he can incorporate
> it into what he calls a "logical" argument against relativity.
Bilge is a troll that snips what he is unable to answer and then resorts to
personal abuse to cover his own stupidity. The above is entirely logical.
The response is off topic.
Androcles
Androcles
news to a relativist.
You should read up on the ten axioms of a vector space, and learn the
subgroups with the operator multiplication that has 1 as an identity and
addition that has 0 as an identity, then tell me what the identity for time
is before you try to tell anyone about your knowledge of mathematics, let
alone your logic in confusing the set of real numbers with time.
Not only that, but you have not even attempted to give a derivation for the
angle A, merely pulled it out of a hat. What is the physical analogue of A
that you are trying to show?
> That ends your objections to special relativity. Ciao.
Really? How strange that you should think so. Obviously you are unable to
answer the question and I'll leave it here for the lurkers to see that you
cannot, and that your only recourse is to snip and ignore anything you find
denies your religion.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:KZPMb.1738$1q3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> What is not sense is you trying to make time negative, but that isn't really
> news to a relativist.
Ha yes, time cannot be negative - thanks for reminding :-)
> You should read up on the ten axioms of a vector space, and learn the
> subgroups with the operator multiplication that has 1 as an identity and
> addition that has 0 as an identity, then tell me what the identity for time
> is before you try to tell anyone about your knowledge of mathematics, let
> alone your logic in confusing the set of real numbers with time.
| "And learn the subgroups with the operator multiplication..."
| "... tell me what the identity for time is ..."
"Androcles in Vector Space":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpace.html
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:e9b03d3c.04011...@posting.google.com...
LET states that it is impossible to determine the state of
motion of the ether, and that you therefore cannot know how
clocks and rulers are physically affected by the ether.
Thus LET doesn't tell us exactly what physically happens
to clocks and rulers, quite the contrary, it tells us that it
is impossible to know. LET tells us exactly what will be measured,
though, but it also tells us that what we measure is wrong by
an unknown amount.
SR, OTOH, tells us exactly what physically happens to clocks
and rulers so that the speed measured for light is c in every frame.
Namely exactly nothing.
You cannot get it more exact than that!
[..]
>
> LET is superior to SR, in every way that a
> superiority exist between these two approaches. This
> does not make LET perfect, but it means what it
> means, it is superior to SR.
It is far better to have no ether which can physically distort
our instruments, thus knowing exactly what physically
happens to them; than having an ether distorting our
instruments in an unknown way, thus having no clue about
how our instruments are physically distorted.
That's why LET has been dead for a century.
It was born dead.
It is only of historical interest.
Keeping flogging a dead horse is a barbaric action.
> Thanks for reading.
Actually I didn't.
I know the tirade from before, and didn't have
to read the whole thing.
Paul
Ken S. Tucker
>Ken S. Tucker:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
[snip]
> I'm using primes to indicate that u and u' refer to the same index.
>There's a distinction between writing X'^u and X^u'. X'^u refers to
>a _different vector_ in the _same coordinate system_, while X^u' refers
>to the _same vector_ in a _different coordinate system_.
That's innovative, needs thought.
>The two essentially accomplish the same thing, but the point
>here was a change of coordinates.
>I also took a few liberties converting between them so that
>I didn't have to clutter things up with intermediate results containing
>even more indicies, primes and metric tensors.like:
>
> g_u'v' X^u'X^' = g_u'v' g_u^u' g_v^v' [X^u + a^u_i X^i][X^v + a^v_j X^j]
>
> I didn't quite adhere to the meaning on the primed vs. unprimed
>coordinates everywhere.
Yes but it looked *hypersonic* to me!
I think g_uv g^uw = g_v^w = &x^w/&x^v
is the Kronecker delta, and
g_v'^w == &x^w / &x'^v
is a covariant transformation, ie,
A'_v = g_v'^w A_w.
What I like about your g^u_v is that it acknowledges
the *mixed* metric tensor, which is what the Kronecker
delta really is. And then priming on the indices forms
the transformation example I just gave.
Anyway your notation is cool. I also think it is
rigorous...is this innovation your own? or is this done
previously (to your knowledge?)
Thanks...Ken S. Tucker
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnc06o56...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> David Canzi:
>> >In article <97uMb.2184$I31....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> >Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>[unsnip]
>"The velocity of light is c for all inertial observers."
>
>It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set by
>the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
>between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart it
>to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon which
>we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we may
>both observe it to be the same?
in what you think is or isn't impossible.
>And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the opposing
>wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
>shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
>they be of equal motion to me?
Buy a light trap. They look like bear traps, but have smaller teeth.
>And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
>that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of light
>from all candles be the same?
>
>> >>I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for
>it
>> >>is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this
>wondrous
>> >>concept without mathematics, but gently, for it shall surely confound
>me and
>> >>cause my head to ache.
>> >
>> >You would never ask for a mathematics-free explanation of how far a
>> >dropped object falls in "t" seconds. Why ask for a mathematics-free
>> >explanation of a relativity problem?
>>
>> Androcles is a troll on a fishing expedition. He wants someone to
>> make a typo or make an error in some semantics so he can incorporate
>> it into what he calls a "logical" argument against relativity.
>Bilge is a troll that snips what he is unable to answer and then resorts to
>personal abuse to cover his own stupidity. The above is entirely logical.
>The response is off topic.
You received an answer and so far you havent come up with an objection.
Bilge
>You should read up on the ten axioms of a vector space, and learn the
>subgroups with the operator multiplication that has 1 as an identity and
>addition that has 0 as an identity, then tell me what the identity for time
>is before you try to tell anyone about your knowledge of mathematics, let
>alone your logic in confusing the set of real numbers with time.
transformation by adding two vectors.
>Not only that, but you have not even attempted to give a derivation for the
>angle A, merely pulled it out of a hat. What is the physical analogue of A
>that you are trying to show?
The same thing it means for a rotation. m = tan(A) is a slope in the
x-y, x-z or y-z plane. m = tanh(A) is a slope in the x-t, y-t, or z-t
plane. That slope happens to have the name \beta otherwise known as
a velocity. A = atanh(\beta). If you have a problem with it "being
pulled from a hat", then start by objecting to ordinary rotations.
Once you mastered circular rotations, we can go on to hyperbolic rotations.
Object to both or neither. They were derived the same way in the same
derivation.
>> That ends your objections to special relativity. Ciao.
>
>Really? How strange that you should think so. Obviously you are unable to
>answer the question
You received an answer to the question - in detail. Your inability
to come up with an objection doesn not become my inability to answer
the question just because you don't like the answer.
>and I'll leave it here for the lurkers to see that you cannot,
>and that your only recourse is to snip and ignore anything you find
>denies your religion.
That's fine. What they'll see is a detailed answer and your only
objection to it being that I "pulled A from a hat". Anyone can
see your objection applies to rotations as well, so you have to
conclude that rotations are invalid.
Bilge
and you posted bullshit for a reply.
>Typical. Another stupid moronic relativist, trapped in an argument
>he has no answer for.
Take up knitting. Maybe you can handle a logical argument involving
which color of yarn looks best for your dunce cap.
Androcles
Most mathematicians know that you even though you can rotate backward
spatially, the rest of the world knows you cannot go back in time.
>
> >You should read up on the ten axioms of a vector space, and learn the
> >subgroups with the operator multiplication that has 1 as an identity and
> >addition that has 0 as an identity, then tell me what the identity for
time
> >is before you try to tell anyone about your knowledge of mathematics,
let
> >alone your logic in confusing the set of real numbers with time.
>
> You should read the response I gave you and note that I found the
> transformation by adding two vectors.
Two independent vectors? No way. Nor did you derive gamma as asked for.
>
> >Not only that, but you have not even attempted to give a derivation for
the
> >angle A, merely pulled it out of a hat. What is the physical analogue of
A
> >that you are trying to show?
>
> The same thing it means for a rotation. m = tan(A) is a slope in the
> x-y, x-z or y-z plane. m = tanh(A) is a slope in the x-t, y-t, or z-t
> plane. That slope happens to have the name \beta otherwise known as
> a velocity. A = atanh(\beta). If you have a problem with it "being
> pulled from a hat", then start by objecting to ordinary rotations.
I don't object to ORDINARY rotations, whatever they are. I object to you
claiming to have derived beta or gamma or whatever you wish to call it,
otherwise known as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is what I asked you to do,
and which you have completely failed to do.
> Once you mastered circular rotations, we can go on to hyperbolic
rotations.
> Object to both or neither. They were derived the same way in the same
> derivation.
>
> >> That ends your objections to special relativity. Ciao.
> >
> >Really? How strange that you should think so. Obviously you are unable
to
> >answer the question
>
> You received an answer to the question - in detail. Your inability
> to come up with an objection doesn not become my inability to answer
> the question just because you don't like the answer.
No, I received a load of what is called the excrement of the male bovine.
>
> >and I'll leave it here for the lurkers to see that you cannot,
> >and that your only recourse is to snip and ignore anything you find
> >denies your religion.
>
> That's fine. What they'll see is a detailed answer and your only
> objection to it being that I "pulled A from a hat". Anyone can
> see your objection applies to rotations as well, so you have to
> conclude that rotations are invalid.
I asked you to derive 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and your answer was
x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
which totally fails as a response to the question, followed by some
stupid crap about abs(5) minutes from now is 5 minutes ago.
Post your reply to alt.moron, it might be accepted there.
Androcles
Androcles
Take up interstellar space flight, I'll load the provisions according to
your specifications.
If you starve for lack of food because you thought you could get away with
time dilation, it's on your head anyway, along with your cap.
Androcles
> Androcles:
> >
> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnc06o56...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> David Canzi:
> >> >In article <97uMb.2184$I31....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >> >Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >[unsnip]
> >"The velocity of light is c for all inertial observers."
> >
> >It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set
by
> >the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
> >between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart
it
> >to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon
which
> >we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we
may
> >both observe it to be the same?
>
> Read the explanation you for and I provided. Nature isn't interested
> in what you think is or isn't impossible.
Read the explanation "you for and I provided"?
What ARE you smoking?
> >And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the
opposing
> >wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
> >shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
> >they be of equal motion to me?
>
> Buy a light trap. They look like bear traps, but have smaller teeth.
Uh huh...
That has to be some good shit you are smoking.
What answer? A reply from a drug crazed idiot savant?
Go away...
Androcles
Bilge
>>
>> Most of the world believes that 5 minutes ago means now - 5 minutes.
>
>Most mathematicians know that you even though you can rotate backward
>spatially, the rest of the world knows you cannot go back in time.
Most mathematicians understand a coordinate transformation.
Apparently, you are not a mathematician nor do you understand
a coordinate transformation.
>> You should read the response I gave you and note that I found the
>> transformation by adding two vectors.
>
>Two independent vectors? No way.
You are about as dense as it gets.
>Nor did you derive gamma as asked for.
I guess the problem is that you don't have sinh, cosh, and tanh on your
calculator nor apparently have you seen them before:
[cosh(A)]^2 - [sinh(A)]^2 = 1
tanh(A) = sinh(A)/cosh(A)
Now, can you do the arithmetic or will I have to do it for you?
(I purposely left the rest to you in order to see if you can do
simple arithmetic -- have at it.)
[...]
>> The same thing it means for a rotation. m = tan(A) is a slope in the
>> x-y, x-z or y-z plane. m = tanh(A) is a slope in the x-t, y-t, or z-t
>> plane. That slope happens to have the name \beta otherwise known as
>> a velocity. A = atanh(\beta). If you have a problem with it "being
>> pulled from a hat", then start by objecting to ordinary rotations.
>
>I don't object to ORDINARY rotations, whatever they are.
Of course not. If you did you'd lose the ability to pull one over
on someone who wasn't familiar with hyperbolic rotations but would
realize you're full of bullshit when you told them a rotation was
an invalid coordinate coordinate transform. Your choices are to
object to both or neither. They were derived the same exact way,
using the same mathematical steps.
>I object to you claiming to have derived beta or gamma or whatever
>you wish to call it, otherwise known as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
Are you stoned or just stupid? Do your own arithmetic. You have
been given a hint above. If you can't figure out how to obtain
gamma from sinh, cosh and tanh, then I'm going to thank you for
the message-id proving you aren't capable of doing simple arithmetic.
So, have at it and if you haven't figured it out in your next
post, by all means tell me I'm an idiot. The better your rant
at being asked to do simple igh scholl math, the better the
reference you'll give me for future use.
>which is what I asked you to do, and which you have completely
>failed to do.
I provided what you asked for. If I have to write down the
trig identities you don't know and are too lazy to look up,
don't complain about receiving abuse.
[...]
>> You received an answer to the question - in detail. Your inability
>> to come up with an objection doesn not become my inability to answer
>> the question just because you don't like the answer.
>
>No, I received a load of what is called the excrement of the male bovine.
OK, I see. You can't grasp a trig identity. That's you're fault.
I expect anyone arguing against relativity to be able to handle
high school math.
[...]
>> That's fine. What they'll see is a detailed answer and your only
>> objection to it being that I "pulled A from a hat". Anyone can
>> see your objection applies to rotations as well, so you have to
>> conclude that rotations are invalid.
>
>I asked you to derive 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and your answer was
> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>which totally fails as a response to the question,
Not unless you're too dense to grasp simple arithmetic. But, that
is your problem. This isn't sci.math.remedial.
>followed by some stupid crap about abs(5) minutes from now is
>5 minutes ago.
Well, I didn't say what you wrote. Do you have such difficulty
objecting to what someone says that you have to rewrite it
and hope they'll overlook the attempt at subterfuge?
>Post your reply to alt.moron, it might be accepted there.
I would have posted the original there, but you posted your
bullshit on this newsgroup rather than posting it there and
asking me to reply to it where it would be less obvious
just how dense you are.
David Canzi
Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"David Canzi" <dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>news:btv40r$ls2$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> In article <97uMb.2184$I31....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
>>
>> You would never ask for a mathematics-free explanation of how far a
>> dropped object falls in "t" seconds. Why ask for a mathematics-free
>> explanation of a relativity problem?
You did not answer my question.
>Ok, give me a mathematical explanation of why the speed of the light I move
>away from is the same as the speed of the light I approach. (If you can)
You originally asked how this can be, not why, and that is the question
I will answer, after you have answered my question.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Andersen wrote:
> LET states that it is impossible to determine the
>state of motion of the ether,
O'Barr comments:
It does not state this. If we were to 'find the
ether,' it would not invalidate LET at all. But I
agree that the facts appears to be this way for now.
Andersen wrote: ...
> ... and that you therefore cannot know how clocks
>and rulers are physically affected by the ether.
O'Barr comments:
Again, you are being a little loose with the
English language! We know exactly what the ether is
doing with clocks and rulers! And all evidence
supports this point of view. What we do not know, is
what is happening to any specific tool. There is a
difference. And because there are reasons for this,
then it is no weakness in the theory that this is
what occurs. You do agree with all this, do you not?
Andersen wrote:
>Thus LET doesn't tell us exactly what physically
>happens to clocks and rulers, quite the contrary, it
>tells us that it is impossible to know. LET tells us
>exactly what will be measured, though, but it also
>tells us that what we measure is wrong by an unknown
>amount.
O'Barr comments:
Well! Thank you for saying that LET does tell us
exactly what will be measured. And that is what
science is all about. What we measure is what you
yourself say is science. And LET does tell us
exactly what will be measured. Thanks again for
saying this. You get to join Roberts as one who is
being more honest on all this!
But because LET is able to inform us that these
measurements that we obtain are affected by changes
in our tools, this allows us to understand all these
funny things that occur in SR. It allows us to
understand these breaks in symmetry, and jumps in
times. It makes all these things simple, and all
these things occurring in the simplest 3-D space, and
by simple vector additions. What a great step
forward when we consider the ether approach!
Andersen wrote:
>SR, OTOH, tells us exactly what physically happens
>to clocks and rulers so that the speed measured for
>light is c in every frame. Namely exactly nothing.
>You cannot get it more exact than that!
O'Barr comments:
Except, Andersen, it is a lie to say that nothing
happens. Today, with all the atomic clocks that have
been sent around the earth, and the satellites we now
have in orbit, now we can say with complete assurance
that there really are changes in the rates of clocks,
and if real changes in clocks occur as we know them
to be, then there has to also be real changes in the
lengths of rulers. And with this, then LET's proof
is complete! And SR is the theory that is dead. And
in this case, it really is dead. It is dead because
of science, not just for feelings of those who did
not like it!
[..]
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> LET is superior to SR, in every way that a
>> superiority exist between these two approaches.
>> This does not make LET perfect, but it means what
>> it means, it is superior to SR.
Andersen wrote:
>It is far better to have no ether which can
>physically distort our instruments, thus knowing
>exactly what physically happens to them; than
>having an ether distorting our instruments in an
>unknown way, thus having no clue about how our
>instruments are physically distorted.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
You can tell yourself this as much as you want,
but saying it does not make it true. You are no
better than an ostrich who sticks his head in the
sand. Not to have an ether, when there really is
one, just because you do not like it, is insane, and
anti-scientific. Surely your mind must tell you that
you cannot go with your feelings on this!
Andersen wrote:
>That's why LET has been dead for a century. It was
>born dead. It is only of historical interest.
>
>Keeping flogging a dead horse is a barbaric action.
O'Barr comments:
I agree that we all buried LET a long time ago.
But I now know that what we buried was not dead. It
was still alive! Talk about being barbaric, nothing
was so unscientific as to bury a live theory, to bury
a theory that has now been proved to be superior to
SR. What a shame on us all!
Thanks for reading (even if you don't read all of
it.)
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo,com>
Gerald L. O'Barr
Bilge broke in and said:
> That's not true. If you were sorry, you'd
>apologize for posting crap and stop posting it.
O'Barr wrote:
>> You are first, not me. . . .
Bilge broke in and said:
> OK, since I can't find any article in a scientific
>journal that takes let seriously, there is no reason
>to take it seriously. Have fun with your tooth
>fairy theory of gravity. It has been as well
>substantiated as let. Now go do something useful
>like make left-handed screwdrivers or sharpen
>bowling balls.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Bilge. Please take a look at your post. You
only made two new entries, and not one of them had
any scientific merit. You talked about tooth
fairies, and left-handed screwdrivers. What a mess
you are, in terms of being scientific.
Whether or not today's literature has any LET
articles makes no differences at all. Science is not
proved by the number of articles seen or not seen. A
theory can be disproved by one article. I was asking
you for that one article, that one scientific test,
that scientifically shows SR is scientifically
accepted over LET, and show to us the number of
standard deviations it quotes to justify a proper
decision. You refused to do this.
Now not only do you not show any science, you
removed the science I was presenting. And you, over
the years, have refused to discuss any of the facts.
You seem now to not want to talk about how impossible
it is for any object to have 4-D. You seem to refuse
to discuss the break in symmetry that occurs in SR.
You seem to refuse to discuss any of the points I
have been making. All you want to do is just to call
me names. Why is that? Can't you be scientific?
I didn't think you could be scientific, and your
recent posts have proved it.
Why do you refuse to state that LET is just as
math perfect as SR? Others have now agreed. Can't
you bring yourself to agree on such an obvious point.
There is no way that you can show scientifically, by
scientific tests, that SR is scientifically better
than LET. They each predict the exact same results!
Why do you refuse to see that SR is only math,
and LET takes us one step deeper into the unknown?
LET provides to us a physical understanding of why or
how the math of SR works. Why are you afraid to say
such simple and obvious things?
Why do you refuse to agree to anything? Is it
really that hard to change?
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Androcles (jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
>In <e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com>
>"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> In <_t9Lb.6248$d27....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
[snip]
>>> Is it mathematical theory, then, Paul?>> That is a good question, Paul. Do you mean to say that
>> all SR experts really believe in the same 3-D space and
>> independent time of Newton? And that SR is only a math
>> that expresses this? If this is true, then we do all
>> agree! Isn't that nice. But if not, then you are a
>> liar! Please note, you either were lying, or you are
>> now lying. You cannot have it both ways! So which way
>> was it?
>>
>> Please be more specific!
Androcles wrote:
>Yes, Gerald, and I have one for you too. You
denounce SR, yet the postulates of SR are something
you accept. So what is wrong with SR?
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Well, why is it that you do not know what I
think? I think nothing except that which is true and
correct. I only think that which is supportable by
science. So listen carefully, and you will never
have to ask me another question. SR and LET have
the exact same math. They are, to this extent, the
same theory. They both make the same math
predictions. They both require the same math
results. They are both 'proved' by the same science.
Therefore, there cannot be anything wrong with SR
math, or else it would mean that the same thing would
be wrong with LET math. So to answer your question,
I do not denounce SR math. In fact, I support SR
math, more than anyone else on this net. I support
it because the results of all tests that we have so
far seen supports it. And I think of myself as being
scientific, and thus I must support SR math. And you
must be able to see that I do this very thing. So
why the question?
What we have is this: LET and SR really do
support the same reality. LET explains the actual
physics of this reality, and based upon what happens
in the ether, exactly as LET requires, then the math
of SR can work. Thus, LET explains why it is that we
can take the math approach taken in SR. LET explains
why the measured speed of light in every inertial
frame is the same. The physics in LET explains why
each reference frame appears to have the same form in
its 'measured physics.'
Let me say some of this again: There is nothing
wrong with SR math. The statements used in SR can be
slightly improved: One should never say that the
speed of light is a constant in every frame, but they
should say, the measured speed of light is a
constant. After all, that is really what is meant,
and done. Only a specific type of measurement, with
a specific type of sync, results in this constant.
And so I often say that SR is of course only math,
and only a measurement science. LET is the correct
physics that goes with the correct math of SR.
SR is a very important and correct measurement
science, but that is what it is. So again, I am not
against SR, but only for a correct understanding of
what SR is all about. And it is now time to come to
a more correct understanding of SR, and time to get
rid of all this 4-D junk, and all these breaks in
symmetries, and all these back in times, etc., etc.,
and etc. It is time to clean house, and all you SR
experts are going to have to change!
And you better believe that you do not have to do
any of this because I say it. We have to all do this
because this is what science is now demanding us to
do! None of us have a choice any more. Never again
will we have a choice. The results are now clear,
that LET is correct, and SR must go. It is now too
late to say we can choose what we want. Science is
clear that real changes are occurring in our tools,
and we must now submit to LET! In fact, everything
is now telling us that this must be done!
Androcles
> Androcles:
>
> >>
> >> Most of the world believes that 5 minutes ago means now - 5 minutes.
> >
> >Most mathematicians know that you even though you can rotate backward
> >spatially, the rest of the world knows you cannot go back in time.
>
> Most mathematicians understand a coordinate transformation.
> Apparently, you are not a mathematician nor do you understand
> a coordinate transformation.
Apparently you are not aware that yesterday is over, tomorrow will come
whether you like it or not, that you are trapped in today and cannot
coordinate transform out of it to either tomorrow or yesterday, even
though you can transform yourself from an idiot to a complete and utter
moron.
>
> >> You should read the response I gave you and note that I found the
> >> transformation by adding two vectors.
> >
> >Two independent vectors? No way.
>
> You are about as dense as it gets.
But not as dense as someone that thinks he can rotate himself back to
yesterday.
> >Nor did you derive gamma as asked for.
>
> I guess the problem is that you don't have sinh, cosh, and tanh on your
> calculator nor apparently have you seen them before:
>
> [cosh(A)]^2 - [sinh(A)]^2 = 1
>
> tanh(A) = sinh(A)/cosh(A)
>
> Now, can you do the arithmetic or will I have to do it for you?
> (I purposely left the rest to you in order to see if you can do
> simple arithmetic -- have at it.)
Balls, you sneering moron.
I've already done it for you, if you snip that's your problem, but here it
is again.
> >> >> For rotations in the x-t, the element of the metric is +1, which
> >> >> gives:
> >> >>
> >> >> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> >> >> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
> >> >>
> >> >> which are lorentz boosts in hyperbolic form.
> >> >>
> >> >That's very clever. Let me see....
> >> > x t A cosh(A) tanh(A) t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
> >> >
> >> > 1.00 0.00 3.14 11.59 1.00 -11.55
> >> >I see you've rotated time backwards.
> [...]
>
> >I object to you claiming to have derived beta or gamma or whatever
> >you wish to call it, otherwise known as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
>
> Are you stoned or just stupid?
So you can't. I knew you couldn't. You are all bluff and bullshit, Bilge.
I'm not interested in your circularity, proving what you assume in the first
place.
Any moron can do that, just as you've proven yourself to be.
Androcles
Androcles
> In article <IOFMb.152$1q3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"David Canzi" <dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
> >news:btv40r$ls2$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >> In article <97uMb.2184$I31....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >> Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this
wondrous
> >> >concept without mathematics, but gently, ...
> >>
> >> You would never ask for a mathematics-free explanation of how far a
> >> dropped object falls in "t" seconds. Why ask for a mathematics-free
> >> explanation of a relativity problem?
>
> You did not answer my question.
>
> >Ok, give me a mathematical explanation of why the speed of the light I
move
> >away from is the same as the speed of the light I approach. (If you can)
>
> You originally asked how this can be, not why, and that is the question
> I will answer, after you have answered my question.
Don't play games with me, I conceded your point. Give me a ANY sensible
explanation of why the speed of the light I move away from is the same as
the speed of the light I approach, and I don't mean "Because Einstein said
so"!
Androcles.
Bilge
Thank you for the message-id pointing out that you can't do simple
arithmetic nor understand what a coordinate system is. Apparently
you think coordinates disappear as a function of time.
[*snip babbling*]
Paul B. Andersen
If the state of motion of the ether is determined,
LET as well as SR would be falsified.
> Andersen wrote: ...
> > ... and that you therefore cannot know how clocks
> >and rulers are physically affected by the ether.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Again, you are being a little loose with the
> English language! We know exactly what the ether is
> doing with clocks and rulers! And all evidence
> supports this point of view. What we do not know, is
> what is happening to any specific tool. There is a
> difference. And because there are reasons for this,
> then it is no weakness in the theory that this is
> what occurs. You do agree with all this, do you not?
I agree in what you said, but tried to hide that you said,
namely that LET states that you cannot know how
clocks and rulers are physically affected by the ether.
> Andersen wrote:
> >Thus LET doesn't tell us exactly what physically
> >happens to clocks and rulers, quite the contrary, it
> >tells us that it is impossible to know. LET tells us
> >exactly what will be measured, though, but it also
> >tells us that what we measure is wrong by an unknown
> >amount.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Well! Thank you for saying that LET does tell us
> exactly what will be measured. And that is what
> science is all about. What we measure is what you
> yourself say is science. And LET does tell us
> exactly what will be measured. Thanks again for
> saying this. You get to join Roberts as one who is
> being more honest on all this!
Well. Said.
LET and SR always predicts exactly the same about what
will be measured. And that is what physics is all about.
> But because LET is able to inform us that these
> measurements that we obtain are affected by changes
> in our tools, this allows us to understand all these
> funny things that occur in SR. It allows us to
> understand these breaks in symmetry, and jumps in
> times. It makes all these things simple, and all
> these things occurring in the simplest 3-D space, and
> by simple vector additions. What a great step
> forward when we consider the ether approach!
This is mumbo jumbo.
No funny things occur in SR.
Clocks never "jumps in time", they always run at its proper rate.
Rulers don't physically change.
It makes things simple.
All measurement can be explained by simple geometry.
LET, OTOH, explains the measurements by unknown
physical changes in the measuring tools.
Both SR and LET predicts exactly what will be measured.
SR has a simple explanation for the measurement.
LET has hardly an explanation at all, only explanations like:
"The length of a moving rod is measured to be x
because the rod has contracted by an unknown amount
and the measuring stick as has contracted by an unknown
amount, but since the ratio between the unknown contractions
doesn't depend on the state of motion of the ether but only
on the relative speed, we know what it will be anyway."
> Andersen wrote:
> >SR, OTOH, tells us exactly what physically happens
> >to clocks and rulers so that the speed measured for
> >light is c in every frame. Namely exactly nothing.
> >You cannot get it more exact than that!
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Except, Andersen, it is a lie to say that nothing
> happens.
I resent being called a liar!
THIS is what I stated, slightly differently worded:
"According to SR no PHYSICAL changes happens
to clocks and rulers because they move relative
to an arbitrary observer."
and that is a FACT!
I did NOT state "nothing happens".
I am sure you know that my statement is true,
so why do you call it a lie?
Listen:
Two observers in relative motion measure the rate of a clock.
They will measure different rates of the clock.
That doesn't physically affect the clock in any way!
The arbitrary motion of two or a thousand observers can
OBVIOUSLY not physically affect the clock in any way.
SR and LET agree about the above statement!
But they differ in the explanation.
SR:
1. The physical (intrinsic, proper) rate of the clock never change.
2. The _measured_ rate depend on the speed of the clock relative
to the observer, which is a relationship between the clock and observer,
in a way easily explained geometrically.
LET:
1. The physical rate of the clock is affected by its speed in the ether,
and since this always is unknown, the clock is slowed down by an
unknown amount.
2. The physical rate of observers' clocks are affected by
the observers' speed in the ether - that is by an unknown
amount. The measured rate is thus neither equal to the
physical rate of the clock, nor the rate the clock would
have had if it were statinary in the ether, but it can be
predicted by the difference between the observrs' and
the clock's speed in the ether.
> Today, with all the atomic clocks that have
> been sent around the earth, and the satellites we now
> have in orbit, now we can say with complete assurance
> that there really are changes in the rates of clocks,
> and if real changes in clocks occur as we know them
> to be, then there has to also be real changes in the
> lengths of rulers.
You can NOT say that there are PHYSICAL (intrinsic,
proper) changes in the rate of the clocks.
This is proven by the FACT that GR predicts exactly
how the clocks will be observed to run WITHOUT any
physical changes of rate of the clocks.
(GR explains it in exactly the same way as SR - only
with a generalization of the geometry)
> And with this, then LET's proof is complete!
Indeed.
LET cannot even predict how these clocks will behave!
A fine proof of the valitity of LET.
> And SR is the theory that is dead. And
> in this case, it really is dead. It is dead because
> of science, not just for feelings of those who did
> not like it!
I think the example you chose illustrates which theories are dead! :-)
> [..]
>
> O'Barr wrote: . . .
> >> LET is superior to SR, in every way that a
> >> superiority exist between these two approaches.
> >> This does not make LET perfect, but it means what
> >> it means, it is superior to SR.
>
> Andersen wrote:
> >It is far better to have no ether which can
> >physically distort our instruments, thus knowing
> >exactly what physically happens to them; than
> >having an ether distorting our instruments in an
> >unknown way, thus having no clue about how our
> >instruments are physically distorted.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> You can tell yourself this as much as you want,
> but saying it does not make it true. You are no
> better than an ostrich who sticks his head in the
> sand. Not to have an ether, when there really is
> one, just because you do not like it, is insane, and
> anti-scientific. Surely your mind must tell you that
> you cannot go with your feelings on this!
Its a historical fact.
Nobody are using LET because it's dead.
SR is used all the time.
>
> Andersen wrote:
> >That's why LET has been dead for a century. It was
> >born dead. It is only of historical interest.
> >
> >Keeping flogging a dead horse is a barbaric action.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I agree that we all buried LET a long time ago.
> But I now know that what we buried was not dead. It
> was still alive! Talk about being barbaric, nothing
> was so unscientific as to bury a live theory, to bury
> a theory that has now been proved to be superior to
> SR. What a shame on us all!
Well.
After having been buried for such a long time,
I am sure LET is dead by now.
Paul
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>>The two essentially accomplish the same thing, but the point
>>here was a change of coordinates.
>>I also took a few liberties converting between them so that
>>I didn't have to clutter things up with intermediate results containing
>>even more indicies, primes and metric tensors.like:
>>
>> g_u'v' X^u'X^' = g_u'v' g_u^u' g_v^v' [X^u + a^u_i X^i][X^v + a^v_j X^j]
>>
>> I didn't quite adhere to the meaning on the primed vs. unprimed
>>coordinates everywhere.
>
>Yes but it looked *hypersonic* to me!
>
>I think g_uv g^uw = g_v^w = &x^w/&x^v
>
>is the Kronecker delta, and
>
>g_v'^w == &x^w / &x'^v
Your definition isn't complete. Perhaps it's because of the
way you stated it. The kroecker \delta is _not_ what you wrote
as,
g_uv g^uw = g_v^w = &x^w/&x^v
because that doesn't say anything about the elements of \delta^u_v.
The definition would be correct if you had written,
g_uv g^uw = \delta_v^w = 0 for v != w
= 1 for v = w
>is a covariant transformation, ie,
>
>A'_v = g_v'^w A_w.
>
>What I like about your g^u_v is that it acknowledges
>the *mixed* metric tensor, which is what the Kronecker
>delta really is. And then priming on the indices forms
>the transformation example I just gave.
> Anyway your notation is cool. I also think it is
>rigorous...is this innovation your own? or is this done
>previously (to your knowledge?)
Using the primes in that fashion is not my idea. I've seen it
various texts, e.g., bjorken & drell. I'm sure there are others,
but that is one comes to mind. I don't think it's so useful in
general relativity, since the vectors themselves change and the
correspondence that exists in special relativity between u and u',
doesn't really exist without an orthonormal basis.
Capitol
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote in message ...
And LET does tell us
>exactly what will be measured.
I'd put this as LET tells us what "may" be measured. Neither approach tells
us what is "real"
Regards
Capitol
David Canzi
Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"David Canzi" <dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>news:bu20c9$49i$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> In article <IOFMb.152$1q3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> Androcles <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >"David Canzi" <dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:btv40r$ls2$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> >> dropped object falls in "t" seconds. Why ask for a mathematics-free
>> >> explanation of a relativity problem?
>>
>> You did not answer my question.
>What the hell is that below, then?
It was you retracting the request rather than explain why you made it.
>> >Ok, give me a mathematical explanation of why the speed of the light I
>move
>> >away from is the same as the speed of the light I approach. (If you can)
>>
>> You originally asked how this can be, not why, and that is the question
>> I will answer, after you have answered my question.
>
>Don't play games with me, I conceded your point. Give me a ANY sensible
>explanation of why the speed of the light I move away from is the same as
>the speed of the light I approach, and I don't mean "Because Einstein said
>so"!
I never offered to explain why. Only how.
The coordinates assigned to events by inertial observers are related by
Lorentz transformations.
If
(1) (x', t') results from a Lorentz transformation of (x, t), and
(2) (X', T') results from the same transformation of (X, T), and
(3) (X-x)/(T-t) = c (or -c),
then (X'-x')/(T'-t') = (X-x)/(T-t).
Gerald L. O'Barr
many deletes by O'Barr.>
Ref: <e9b03d3c.04011...@posting.google.com>
<bu0sov$4be$1...@dolly.uninett.no>
<e9b03d3c.04011...@posting.google.com>
<bttpe0$80p$1...@dolly.uninett.no>...
<e9b03d3c.04010...@posting.google.com
>>
>> Andersen wrote:
>>> LET states that it is impossible to determine the
>>> state of motion of the ether,
>>
>> O'Barr comments:
>> It does not state this. If we were to 'find the
>> ether,' it would not invalidate LET at all. But I
>> agree that the facts appears to be this way for
>> now.
Andersen wrote:
>If the state of motion of the ether is determined,
>LET as well as SR would be falsified.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Totally untrue. Surely you know that it would
depend on how it was done. What if it was done on the
microscopic scale, at a level lower than atoms. This
might not harm a thing!
The ether does not care if you find it or not. How
could the ether be disproved if you found it? The
very concept shows you are crazy! In SR, you do have
a formal position that all frames are equal.
Therefore, you will have an end to SR if you find the
ether, or find a difference with any one frame. But
this weakness does not exist in LET on a fundamental
level! (What SR should say, to be the most correct,
is that all inertial frames show a mathematical
equality in form, on the level of our present
testing.)
>> Andersen wrote: ...
>>> ... and that you therefore cannot know how clocks
>>>and rulers are physically affected by the ether.
>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> Again, you are being a little loose with the
>>English language! We know exactly what the ether is
>>doing with clocks and rulers! And all evidence
>>supports this point of view. What we do not know,
>>is what is happening to any specific tool. There is
>>a difference. And because there are reasons for
>>this, then it is no weakness in the theory that this
>>is what occurs. You do agree with all this, do you
>>not?
Andersen wrote:
>I agree in what you said, but tried to hide that you
>said, namely that LET states that you cannot know how
>clocks and rulers are physically affected by the
>ether.
O'Barr comments:
Well thanks for saying you agree, but then you say
you don't! You act as if LET were a person, and goes
around saying all these things. These things you say
LET says, are things you just make up. LET never
proposed a position that that you cannot know that the
ether affects clocks and rulers. If the day ever came
where we find a means of seeing ether particles, that
will be great, and might not in anyway invalidate a
thing. How can you be so dumb! To say if you find
the ether, then you disprove it, is stupid and
impossible. If you find it, you prove it. How could
it be different than that?
Let me repeat. LET, on the theoretical level, is
totally exact and perfect. It is perfectly supported
by what we see and experience in every test made. The
only problem we have, is that we, not knowing where we
are at, cannot state with any certainly how much
change has already occurred. But this certainly does
not affect the perfection of the theory.
You should not try to infer that there is any
imperfection in the theory. There are no
imperfections in the theory. You have no right to say
or infer that LET does not know what is going on. LET
has everything perfect. It might be us, we might be
unable to know the exact status of things, but there
is no question about the correctness and exactness of
LET as a theory. Now try and weasel out of that!
>> Andersen wrote:
>>>Thus LET doesn't tell us exactly what physically
>>>happens to clocks and rulers, quite the contrary,
>>>it tells us that it is impossible to know.
>>> LET tells us
>>> exactly what will be measured, though, but it also
>>> tells us that what we measure is wrong by an
>>> unknown amount.
>
>> O'Barr comments:
>> Well! Thank you for saying that LET does tell us
>> exactly what will be measured. And that is what
>> science is all about. What we measure is what you
>> yourself say is science. And LET does tell us
>> exactly what will be measured. Thanks again for
>> saying this. You get to join Roberts as one who is
>> being more honest on all this!
Andersen wrote:
> Well. Said.
>LET and SR always predicts exactly the same about
>what will be measured. And that is what physics is
>all about.
O'Barr wrote:
>> But because LET is able to inform us that these
>> measurements that we obtain are affected by changes
>>in our tools, this allows us to understand all these
>> funny things that occur in SR. It allows us to
>> understand these breaks in symmetry, and jumps in
>> times. It makes all these things simple, and all
>>these things occurring in the simplest 3-D space,
>> and by simple vector additions. What a great step
>> forward when we consider the ether approach!
Andersen wrote:
>This is mumbo jumbo. No funny things occur in SR.
>Clocks never "jumps in time", they always run at its
>proper rate. Rulers don't physically change.
>It makes things simple. All measurement can be
>explained by simple geometry.
O'Barr comments:
I see. There is nothing funny about 4-D. Rulers
do not change. Clocks do not change. There is
nothing funny about anything that goes on in SR. And
you said all this with such a straight face. But you
lie! SR is physically impossible. And the biggest
lie of all, is the last word you used above, it is all
explained by geometry! Yes, the math did it. Isn't
that great. But it is all a lie. Math cannot do
anything. You lie when you say these things, and
there is not one experiment you can do to support your
lie! Shame on you!
I am going to end this post at this point. It is
way too long. And what good will it do if someone
will not admit that SR requires one to believe in
funny things. I will gladly address any of the
deleted issues if you will repeat them in another post
that is not so long. (And nothing physically happens
to clocks and rulers in SR? What a laugh! All the
changes we see and measure are just imaginary, is that
your scientific position?!)
Harry
SNIP
> OK, since I can't find any article in a scientific journal that
> takes let seriously, there is no reason to take it seriously.
Dear Bilge, please don't tell such nonsense, I preferred you to two such
articles in high quality journals just a few days before you wrote the
above.
Message ID <3ffd67c0$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch>
Harald