Why a Problem?
Gerald L. O'Barr
The very purpose of science is to deal with and
solve problems! The purpose of science is to define
the problem, stake out its limits, and to put forth
the facts as best known at any particular time.
Science has a responsibility to then lay out possible
solutions, and establish the most likely solutions as
justified by the existing evidence.
Science then decides on the best testing to
perform, and to proceed with such testing until an
advancement in our knowledge or interpretation of our
reality is accomplished, point by point, problem by
problem. Some of these steps, at any one time, might
be difficult, even impossible. But what is not
difficult, what is not impossible, is to understand
the steps, and to agree on the need for such steps.
And scientific people should never disagree on what
the facts might be, at any one point of time.
Therefore, if we were scientific, then we would be
able to turn to many works (at a least a few that
would be acceptable to all), where a known problem
would be correctly stated, and where the presently
known evidence would be listed or referenced. The
most reasonable solutions would be presented, and the
present decisions as to what tests were needed would
be listed and properly understood. Some estimate of
the acceptability of any specific approach would be
able to be given.
So let us look at these SR and LET debates! We do
have these debates, don't we? There really does
appear to be a problem! So where is the science that
shows the answers? Where is the science that shows
the evidence for SR, as a counter to LET? And where
is the science that shows the evidence for LET, as a
counter to SR? I want to see in print, a book or
article that has been formally published with
consensus, that says that there is a problem between
LET and SR (eg, they both make identical predictions),
and the data that is able to make a difference
between them is x, and x supports SR by a present
degree of margin of 99.8%. Where is this data!
Where is this science?
Now I have been around a long time, and such a
direct comparison between SR and LET has not been
personally seen. Certainly, individuals have made a
personal decision to accept SR over LET, and this has
been done over the over. This is found everywhere.
But a personal decision is not necessarily a
scientific decision. I want to see a scientific
approach that sets up the logic, and shows the test
that would scientifically separate SR from LET. Then
I would want to see the results of such a test, and
the degree of margin by which SR is accepted over
LET, as supported by the results. To how many
standard deviations was this decision able to be
made?
Now being around for some time, I have seen almost
all theories do this! Even F = ma is studied and
shown to be correct only within some degree of
accuracy. Scientists do recognize that they do not
really know where these reactions to accelerations
reside, and they are free (even anxious) to explain
this, and to explain the degree to which they know
some of these limits. They do not hesitate to say
such things! It actually shows that they are willing
to be scientific about their beliefs!
But there are several areas in science where
such openness does not exist. And one of these areas
is between LET and SR. There is no base upon which
one can turn, to find this scientific comparison
between LET and SR. Why is that? It shows to me
that science, in this area, is a sick science, and
for some reason, is being unscientific. Please help
me! Where is an acceptable article that
scientifically addresses this problem between SR and
LET! I do not see it in the FAQ! I do not see it in
any reference! I do not see it anywhere!
Now to be more specific: Those who support SR
today seem to accept a 4-D spacetime as a reality.
This 4-D is physically so impossible I cannot even
visualize it in my mind. And SR did not start out
this way. If SR did not start out this way, do all
you SR experts say that SR was wrong the first few
years of its life? And I know of no testing that was
or is used to indicate a 4-D, as counter to a 3-D.
So I have no science that indicates this 4-D, with
any specified error of margin.
To me, the use of LET immediately puts us in a 3-D
mode, which mode is far simpler, in physical fact, to
a 4-D mode. Now my saying this does not make it
true, but it is obviously true. Why are these facts
not stated by SR experts that this would make LET a
simpler approach on the physical level? We cannot
disagree on the facts (if we were all being
scientific), and yet SR experts seem unable to even
agree to obvious facts! There is something sick
about those who say they believe in SR! It is
unbelievable that they are not willing to even accept
obvious facts, as they are known to be.
Therefore, I am asking all SR experts, to please
directly address me in a scientific way. I want to
know and to see the science that puts SR above LET!
I do not want you to just tell me what you believe, I
want the scientific evidence. I want to know the
specific test applied, and why that test could
distinguish between these two theories. And the
margin of error that it established.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
Remove the 3 dots for e-mail!
Perspicacious
elegant, axiomatic system based on minimal assumptions,
much like Euclidean geometry. For example, in the
axiomatic SR system that I prefer, you only need to
presuppose Newton's first law of motion and the
homogeneity of time. Do you accept these simple
axioms or not?
The only reason that I can think of to add additional
postulates to SR would be to enrich the system with
new properties to arrive at conclusions that are more
powerful.
I have worked on finding nontrivial spacetime models
where Newton's first law of motion is false and the
homogeneity of time postulate is true, but have been
unsuccessful so far.
Chances are that you can't tolerate axioms other than
those of LET but it's your job to sell them yourself.
And you might want to consider this observation: I
think you're doing a terrible job as I don't even
know what your postulates are.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Androcles
"Perspicacious" <iperspi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125950770.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Special relativity, properly formulated, is a beautifully
| elegant, axiomatic system based on minimal assumptions,
"There are well-dressed foolish ideas, just as there are well-dressed
fools."--Nicolas Chamfort
| much like Euclidean geometry. For example, in the
| axiomatic SR system that I prefer, you only need to
| presuppose Newton's first law of motion and the
| homogeneity of time. Do you accept these simple
| axioms or not?
I do not accept the definition:
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
I will accept Newton's definition:
"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another
name is called duration"
From this I conclude that your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's
and your properly formulated, beautifully elegant, axiomatic system
based on minimal assumptions is turtle crap.
| The only reason that I can think
Don't tell people you can think, it's an obvious lie and
nothingimportant.disorg.
Androcles.
"No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope
Gerald L. O'Barr
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> . . .
Perspicacious wrote:
>Special relativity, properly formulated, is a
>beautifully elegant, axiomatic system based on
>minimal assumptions, much like Euclidean geometry.
>For example, in the axiomatic SR system that I
>prefer, you only need to presuppose Newton's first
>law of motion and the homogeneity of time. Do you
>accept these simple axioms or not?
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
Yes! SR is beautiful! It is elegant! It is
simple! It only has a few assumptions! It is a math
approach! It is perfect in that it is able to give us
correct math predictions! And I accept all this! SR
is a marvel and a blessing to have and to use!
But also, it is only math. It does not give us
one single physical explanation as to why c is a
constant, it does not tell us why this physically
occurs, or how it physically occurs, or what
physically causes it to occur. It is not given to us
in the theory, or even in any results that have been
found in the theory. It does not tell us how it is
possible to physically have 4-D, nor has it provided
us a way to test for 4-D, as different from the 3-D
that exists in LET, etc. SR does not show us
anything as to why nature is able to physically do
one single thing that is given in SR, or in its basic
assumptions.
Now I answered your question above, that I was
able to see and to understand most every one of your
points. Are you able to see and to understand all of
my points?
Perspicacious wrote:
>The only reason that I can think of to add
>additional postulates to SR would be to enrich the
>system with new properties to arrive at conclusions
>that are more powerful.
O'Barr (globarr) comments:
I see! You do not care to know or understand
anything about what physically occurs? You do not
care to know why c is a physical constant? You do
not really care if there really is a 4-D or just a 3-
D? All you care about is just getting the math
answers? What has happened to you, that you no
longer care about the physics?
Perspicacious wrote:
>I have worked on finding nontrivial spacetime models
>where Newton's first law of motion is false and the
>homogeneity of time postulate is true, but have been
>unsuccessful so far.
>
>Chances are that you can't tolerate axioms other
>than those of LET but it's your job to sell them
>yourself. And you might want to consider this
>observation: I think you're doing a terrible job as
>I don't even know what your postulates are.
O'Barr comments:
Do a google group search on sci.physics.relativity
using globarr as a general word, or use Gerald O'Barr
as author, and you might find one or two of my posts.
I am sorry for the terrible job I am doing, but I
know you have great capabilities, and you will
overcome my lack of abilities!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
RP
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> Why a Problem?
<snipped wasted bandwidth>
> Now to be more specific: Those who support SR
> today seem to accept a 4-D spacetime as a reality.
> This 4-D is physically so impossible I cannot even
> visualize it in my mind. And SR did not start out
> this way. If SR did not start out this way, do all
> you SR experts say that SR was wrong the first few
> years of its life? And I know of no testing that was
> or is used to indicate a 4-D, as counter to a 3-D.
> So I have no science that indicates this 4-D, with
> any specified error of margin.
The 4D manifold predates special relativity. The idea is that every
spacetime event can be described as having a relative location in space
and in time as well, 4 dimensions in all, one number per dimension per
event. The difference between the Lorentz and Galilean manifolds is only
in the transformations between frames. WRT any one frame there is no
distinction between the two whatsoever.
Richard Perry
jem
> Special relativity, properly formulated, is a beautifully
> elegant, axiomatic system based on minimal assumptions,
> much like Euclidean geometry. For example, in the
> axiomatic SR system that I prefer, you only need to
> presuppose Newton's first law of motion and the
> homogeneity of time. Do you accept these simple
> axioms or not?
Of course not, else Newton would have formulated SR.
YBM
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Hooft response is delightfull, too bad you're too deluded
to grasp the irony :
> I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
> saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
> technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
> that.
> Cordially,
> G. 't Hooft
Eugene Shubert has been debunked numerous times here and
on his own forum :
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=451&start =14
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3928
Of course, as honestly as any crackpot or religious fanatic, Eugene
deleted some posts which make him feel uncomfortable :
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious wrote:
> > Special relativity, properly formulated, is a beautifully
> > elegant, axiomatic system based on minimal assumptions,
> > much like Euclidean geometry. For example, in the
> > axiomatic SR system that I prefer, you only need to
> > presuppose Newton's first law of motion and the
> > homogeneity of time. Do you accept these simple
> > axioms or not?
>
> Of course not, else Newton would have formulated SR.
jem,
Your response makes no sense to me. What do you mean,
"else Newton would have formulated SR"? Newton could
have, but didn't. See, A. Sen: How Galileo could have
derived the special theory of relativity, Am. J. Phys.
62 (1994) 157-162. Alternatively, see reference 11 in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf
jem
> jem wrote:
>
>>Perspicacious wrote:
>>
>>>Special relativity, properly formulated, is a beautifully
>>>elegant, axiomatic system based on minimal assumptions,
>>>much like Euclidean geometry. For example, in the
>>>axiomatic SR system that I prefer, you only need to
>>>presuppose Newton's first law of motion and the
>>>homogeneity of time. Do you accept these simple
>>>axioms or not?
>>
>>Of course not, else Newton would have formulated SR.
>
>
> jem,
>
> Your response makes no sense to me. What do you mean,
> "else Newton would have formulated SR"? Newton could
> have, but didn't.
No, Newton *would have*, if those assumptions were sufficient for SR.
Perspicacious
I believe that I understand you. You're dissatisfied with
physics as a predictive, mathematical science. Your objective
is to diminish it and exalt mechanistic philosophy above it.
The philosophy of physics is in the math. There's no separate
place for it:
"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, ...
But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to
comprehend the language and read the characters in which it
is written. It is written in the language of mathematics."
- Galileo Galilei.
> O'Barr (globarr) comments:
> I see! You do not care to know or understand
> anything about what physically occurs? You do not
> care to know why c is a physical constant? You do
> not really care if there really is a 4-D or just a 3-
> D? All you care about is just getting the math
> answers?
Essentially, yes. What's the value of untestable philosophy?
How could mathematically unquantifiable personal speculations
mean anything objectively? As I see it, the value of any
physical philosophy can only be measured by the physics it
generates. I, therefore, have adopted a pragmatic definition
of physics:
"Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes.
A universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime,
matter, energy and their interactions. Think of each model
universe as filling one page in the atlas of all possible
universes."
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Perspicacious
> Newton *would have*, if those assumptions were sufficient for SR.
I see what you're saying. You believe that both derivations of SR
in http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf are
incorrect. Where are the major mistakes?
Please note the similarity of Shubert's first derivation with the
approach taken in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf
Where's the error in the second derivation?
Bilge
>
> The very purpose of science is to deal with and solve problems!
problems.
Harry
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125941041....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In fact there *has* been an article in the AJP a few years ago - rather poor
compared to the knowledge in this NG - that did just that! Despite a few
errors, their conclusion was - if I remember well - that there is no
distinctive evidence available for either Einstein's or Lorentz'
interpretation. I can try to find it back if you like.
[snip]
Harald
Harry
> Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> > Are you able to see and to understand all of my points?
>
> I believe that I understand you. You're dissatisfied with
> physics as a predictive, mathematical science. Your objective
> is to diminish it and exalt mechanistic philosophy above it.
What do you mean with "mechanistic philosophy" and how can physics be
"diminished" by it, according to you?
> The philosophy of physics is in the math. There's no separate
> place for it:
>
> "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, ...
> But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to
> comprehend the language and read the characters in which it
> is written. It is written in the language of mathematics."
> - Galileo Galilei.
Hmm... We now know the math and comprehend the LT. So... Now what? We have
done the "first" thing, according to Galileo, *after* which we can try to
understand it. But according ot you we should stop at the math ("the
language"), and forget to make sense out of it! That was however not the
idea behind natural philosophy.
> > O'Barr (globarr) comments:
> > I see! You do not care to know or understand
> > anything about what physically occurs? You do not
> > care to know why c is a physical constant? You do
> > not really care if there really is a 4-D or just a 3-
> > D? All you care about is just getting the math
> > answers?
>
> Essentially, yes. What's the value of untestable philosophy?
> How could mathematically unquantifiable personal speculations
> mean anything objectively? As I see it, the value of any
> physical philosophy can only be measured by the physics it
> generates. I, therefore, have adopted a pragmatic definition
> of physics:
>
> "Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes.
> A universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime,
> matter, energy and their interactions. Think of each model
> universe as filling one page in the atlas of all possible
> universes."
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
I'd say that physics is about describing things that can be measured (the
science), but attempting explanations by means of models (the philosophy) is
sometimes also included. Lengths and durations belong to physics, but
"Spacetime" belongs to the explanations - which you reject.
Harald
jem
Multiple physical models can describe the same set of experimental
facts, and there may not be a clear consensus regarding which of the
viable models is "best". However, that's not the case for Relativity
and LET, where the former is preferred almost unanimously. Why? Well,
for one thing because it's simpler and has straightforward extensions to
include gravity and nuclear forces, but even if that weren't the case,
the extraordinary implausibility of the LET assumptions (e.g. time
dilation and length contraction) would be sufficient incentive to throw
out that baby with the bathwater.
The concept of "spacetime" in Relativity doesn't imply that space and
time are the same (they're obviously not the same), but simply that
they're not independent of one another.
jem
> jem wrote:
>
>>Newton *would have*, if those assumptions were sufficient for SR.
>
>
> I see what you're saying.
No, apparently you don't - in spite of the fact that I've said it now 3
times. Galilean Relativity is consistent with Newton's 1st "law" and
homogeneous time. Therefore those 2 assumptions can't possibly be
sufficient to derive SR.
You believe that both derivations of SR
> in http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf are
> incorrect. Where are the major mistakes?
I've already provided you with a number of criticisms/suggestions
concerning your so-called derivation. They're part of the record - no
need to repeat them.
Perspicacious
> Galilean Relativity is consistent with Newton's 1st "law" and
> homogeneous time. Therefore those 2 assumptions can't possibly
> be sufficient to derive SR.
Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity are consistent with
Newton's 1st "law" and homogeneous time. They are both part of
an infinite number of theories, the only difference between them
being the value of the spacetime structure constant.
Shubert says very clearly on page 8 of his paper that "the value
of k can be determined experimentally." Those who respect the
learned opinion of professional physicists should consider the
article, "Lorentz transformations from the first postulate" by
A. R. Lee and T. M. Kalotas, published by the American Journal
of Physics -- May 1975 -- Volume 43, Issue 5, pp. 434-437. It
says exactly the same thing. The abstract states:
"We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz
transformation by invoking the principle of relativity
alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of
the existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a
velocity is shown to be a necessary consequence of the
first postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite
is borne out by experiment."
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001
Why aren't you complaining to the AJP for publishing the
paper, "Lorentz transformations from the first postulate"?
That paper derives a general Lorentzian transformation
featuring a nonnegative spacetime structure constant k
and encourages us to call it the Lorentz transformation.
>> You believe that both derivations of SR in
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > are incorrect. Where are the major mistakes?
>
> I've already provided you with a number of criticisms/suggestions
> concerning your so-called derivation. They're part of the record
> - no need to repeat them.
For the benefit of those who might have missed your great rebuttal,
a direct link to your specific refutation would be nice.
Perspicacious
> "Perspicacious" wrote in message
> news:1125972649.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> > > Are you able to see and to understand all of my points?
> >
> > I believe that I understand you. You're dissatisfied with
> > physics as a predictive, mathematical science. Your objective
> > is to diminish it and exalt mechanistic philosophy above it.
>
> What do you mean with "mechanistic philosophy" and how can
> physics be "diminished" by it, according to you?
Physics is what it is, as I have defined it. The musings
of philosophers may lead us to physics but often times an
unscientific and ignorant imagination doesn't even bring
us to a good definition. It's insane to not even want a
distinction between unquantifiable fantasies and physics.
Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that
no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying
to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it
possibly be like that?' because you will go down the drain
into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody
knows how it can be like that."
I define 'mechanistic philosophy' as the belief in determinism,
especially the belief that spacetime and everything in it can
ultimately be described as we usually understand machines. I mean
mechanistic in the extreme: The idea that the essential laws of
physics--fields of force (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak
and strong nuclear force), quantum theory, relativistic effects,
the nature of time, the properties of matter and energy--are
all derivable from a correct mechanical understanding of the
aether fluid. Mechanical: All forces are contact forces and/or
something else equally simplistic.
For example: If you believe that the earth moves in its orbit
around the sun because the earth is stuck in a constantly flexing
eddy of luminiferous fluid or, alternatively, is naturally sliding
on a slippery spacetime fabric, then yes, you have embraced a
mechanistic belief.
> > The philosophy of physics is in the math. There's no separate
> > place for it:
> >
> > "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, ...
> > But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to
> > comprehend the language and read the characters in which it
> > is written. It is written in the language of mathematics."
> > - Galileo Galilei.
>
> Hmm... We now know the math and comprehend the LT. So... Now what?
Attaching physical meaning to the LT should be done with axioms.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4271#4271
> We have done the "first" thing, according to Galileo, *after*
> which we can try to understand it. But according to you we
> should stop at the math ("the language"), and forget to make
> sense out of it!
Hopefully, axioms are chosen to be as irreducible as possible.
What kind of sense do you want to find in the simplest axioms
of SR known -- Newton's first law and the homogeneity of time?
> I'd say that physics is about describing things that can be
> measured (the science), but attempting explanations by means
> of models (the philosophy) is sometimes also included. Lengths
> and durations belong to physics, but "Spacetime" belongs to
> the explanations - which you reject.
I don't know what you mean. Spacetime is a mathematical construct
and I believe in the mathematization of physics.
Gerald L. O'Barr
RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>> Why a Problem?
>>
><snipped wasted bandwidth>
>>
>> . . . to be more specific: Those who support SR
>> today seem to accept a 4-D spacetime as a reality.
>> This 4-D is physically so impossible I cannot even
>> visualize it in my mind. And SR did not start out
>> this way. If SR did not start out this way, do all
>> you SR experts say that SR was wrong the first few
>> years of its life? And I know of no testing that
>> was or is used to indicate a 4-D, as counter to a
>> 3-D. So I have no science that indicates this 4-D,
Richard Perry wrote:
>The 4D manifold predates special relativity.
O'Barr comments:
It is true, math is math, and 4D math has existed
as long as man has been able to count! But you are
not so silly, are you, to say that scientific people
actually thought that 3-D space and 1-D time was not
separate entities, but where physically interlinked
together into one whole 4-D? That time could
actually and truly and really be space, and space
could really and truly be time? Just by a simple
rotation? CFR!
Richard Perry wrote:
>The idea is that every spacetime event can be
>described as having a relative location in space and
>in time as well, 4 dimensions in all, one number per
>dimension per event.
O'Barr comments:
But this is not what is being taught in SR! Let
us not be so dumb that we do not know what is being
taught! You are not just teaching that numbers can
be assigned to an event! You are not just teaching
that a set of 4 numbers make up a unique 'location!'
You are saying that there is a real physical 4-D
entity within which both space and time physically
exist, all part of the same medium! And you are
saying that a simple rotation causes space to become
time, and time to become space, just as a rotation
can cause a North to be South, and a South to be
North! Tell me you are not this dumb! Why talk to
you if you do not even know the science being
discussed!
Richard Perry wrote:
>The difference between the Lorentz and Galilean
>manifolds is only in the transformations between
>frames. WRT any one frame there is no
>distinction between the two whatsoever.
O'Barr comments:
Certainly, in terms of LET and SR, the math
answers are absolutely identical, in terms of the
results, in terms of any and all math predictions.
And this is true within any one frame (as you said),
or within any transformations between frames (which
you did not say!) And many on this net have died the
death of being unscientific, because they refuse to
admit such. Might I suggest that you reconsider what
you said above!
The identicalness of the math results, however,
does not give you or anyone else the right to refuse
to see that the base upon which these predictions are
conceptualized are mutually exclusive! The base to
LET is simple, an absolute reference, with a simple
fixed 3-D space, and simple 1-D time. The LET
approach is a simple physical approach, with full
abilities to conceptualize every step taken, with the
potential of having full causality.
In SR, you have no physical base whatsoever! You
do not even know what actually happens. The word
'what actually happens' is not allowed in your
vocabulary! All you get from your theory is what
would be measured if you had a certain measurement
system. That is all you know. But in LET, we know
the differences that can be between what is measured
from what actually might happen. And thus, what
actually happens never includes any jumps in time, or
back in times. But in SR, you have to accept that
such measurements occur, and you cannot say what
might have really happened!
All your theory allows you to say is only what is
measured. What you measure is your only reality, and
thus you have to live with what you measure, and for
this, you are dead as a scientist. Shame on you!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
Gerald L. O'Barr
news:1125941041....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> . . . I want to see in print, a book or
>> article that has been formally published with
>> consensus, that says that there is a problem between
>> LET and SR (eg, they both make identical predictions),
>> and the data that is able to make a difference
>> between them is x, and x supports SR by a present
>> degree of margin of 99.8%. Where is this data!
>> Where is this science?
>> Now I have been around a long time, and such a
>> direct comparison between SR and LET has not been
>Harald wrote:
>In fact there *has* been an article in the AJP a few years ago - rather poor
>compared to the knowledge in this NG - that did just that! Despite a few
>errors, their conclusion was - if I remember well - that there is no
>distinctive evidence available for either Einstein's or Lorentz'
>interpretation. I can try to find it back if you like.
O'Barr (globarr) comments:
That would be great! Please list the errors, or weaknesses,
if you believe there were a few.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald
Gerald L. O'Barr
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote: . . .
>> Are you able to see and to understand all of my
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I believe that I understand you. You're dissatisfied
>with physics as a predictive, mathematical science.
O'Barr comments:
Do not play games! I asked you if you were able
to see and understood the points being made. You did
not address these issues. You went and hid by trying
to talk about my feelings or intent. Shame on you!
Unless you are willing to address the points being
made, there is no reason to try a science discussion
with you. Are you unable to discuss the points being
made? Do you need them to be repeated?
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your objective is to diminish it and exalt
>mechanistic philosophy above it.
O'Barr comments:
I certainly do have feelings, and I certainly do
have an objective. And I certainly have a theory
that includes a very simple 'mechanical' approach, a
physical approach, an approach that has causes and
effects, an approach that can be visualized and
conceptualized and logically considered and used to
formulate in our minds what our reality is all about.
And some of this might have something to do with
understanding the points that have been made, and
which we must address if we are to be scientific!
Are you going to address the points being made?
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The philosophy of physics is in the math. There's
>no separate place for it:
O'Barr comments:
Philosophy can be everywhere, where there is
meaningful support to the base of a theory. If all
you have is a math theory, then if there is any
philosophy to the theory, then it would have to be in
the math. But if you have a physical theory, then
the philosophy would have to be in the physical base
to the theory. You are dumb to say what you said
above!
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the
>universe, ... But the book cannot be understood
>unless one first learns to comprehend the language
>and read the characters in which it is written. It
>is written in the language of mathematics."
>- Galileo Galilei.
O'Barr comments:
Your own quote betrays you! The 'universe' is
where the real philosophy exists, exactly as is said
above! Thank you! For some of us, we are only
mathematicians, and for those with such limitations,
we can only understand any existing philosophy only
after it is reduced to math. Sorry about your sorry
state, but that is what is being said above, and I
agree! You are a hopeless case of being just a
mathematician!
> O'Barr (globarr) comments: . . .
>> I see! You do not care to know or understand
>> anything about what physically occurs? You do not
>> care to know why c is a physical constant? You do
>> not really care if there really is a 4-D or just a
>> 3-D? All you care about is just getting the math
>> answers?
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Essentially, yes.
O'Barr comments:
Yes, at least you are an honest mathematician.
All you care about is having the correct math
answers! Knowing the actual cause or meaning to the
answer is beyond your interest or capabilities!
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What's the value of untestable philosophy?
>How could mathematically unquantifiable personal
>speculations mean anything objectively? As I see it,
>the value of any physical philosophy can only be
>measured by the physics it generates. I, therefore,
>have adopted a pragmatic definition of physics:
O'Barr comments:
Yes, you have adopted something that is not
physics. You have ran away from the physics. All
you want is math, so that you can feel good about it.
But this is wrong, and we will eventually get the
physics back into our physics where it belongs!
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Physics is the mathematical study of all
>conceivable universes. A universe is a mathematical
>model that describes spacetime, matter, energy and
>their interactions. Think of each model universe as
>filling one page in the atlas of all possible
>universes."
>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/specia
>l.pdf
O'Barr comments:
And one reason you like physics being just math is
that you can say anything and get away with it! Look
at your childish and stupid comments above: You say
that physics is the mathematical study of all
conceivable universes. What rot! There is only one
universe! And it is not just a math study. Math is
used only as an aid! It is a critical aid, but it is
only an aid.
If any thinking person were given your words
above, they would throw up (puke, vomit,
regurgitate)! You sound like you are crazy, insane,
saying things just to hear yourself talk. Your words
have no logic, no common sense, no anything that
would allow anyone to think that you have any
thinking going on in your mind. It sounds like you
have become crazy, thinking that you are living in
some 5th dimension, in some non-normal world.
Why would anyone want to say what you said in the
way you said it? Why? Does it make you feel
superior? To be able to talk foolishly and expect to
get away with it? You sound like a professor who has
tenure, and wants to show to everyone that you have
such a position so that you can be foolish! Is this
your position? You want to show to everyone that you
can be foolish, and thus you prove you have it made?
Now I cannot say that you stink as a person, because
I do not know you, but you have no right to be on
this net and not address the points being made!
Again, do you need to have any of these points re-
stated?
Gerald L. O'Barr
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>> . . . .
>>
>> . . . I want to see in print, a book or
>> article that has been formally published with
>> consensus, that says that there is a problem
>> between LET and SR (eg, they both make identical
>> predictions), and the data that is able to make a
>> difference between them is x, and x supports SR by
>> a present degree of margin of 99.8%. Where is
>> this data! Where is this science?
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Multiple physical models can describe the same set
>of experimental facts, and there may not be a clear
>consensus regarding which of the viable models is
>"best".
O'Barr (globarr) comments:
I beg to differ. We have both physical models of
things, and math models. In terms of math models,
yes, there can be many competing models that might be
acceptable. Math has a flexibility that is very
good, and many functions and approaches can be used
to approximate the same results.
But physical models are much different. And you
did yourself use above the word 'physical!' Can you
name an alternate physical model to the kinetic
theory of gases? The reason why physical models are
desired, is that they are most often solid, absolute,
reliable models that produce clear and understandable
logic, and they provide a solid base upon which the
math can be developed and defined and limited exactly
as is required by the reality in which it is being
used!
What is important is specifically our subject:
SR verses LET. LET is a physical model! It cannot
be 'conceptualized' with a different kind of a
physical model. The model might someday be improved
(with my at theory, for one example), but not with a
different result as we have with the present model!
You will forever physically have one special frame in
which all dynamic interactions occur and can be
referenced, etc.
SR is a math model! It of course can be replaced
with any number of models, to include GR if anyone
cares to consider such things. So you need to be
careful if you intend to discuss math models, or
physical models. They are very different from each
other!
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>However, that's not the case for Relativity
>and LET, where the former is preferred almost
>unanimously.
O'Barr comments:
I see! There is no test that shows one produces
correct results and is acceptable, and the other does
not produce correct results and is therefore not
acceptable. All that we have is that one is
personally 'preferred!' Why is this not in the FAQ?
Why are not all texts written as 'SR, the personally
preferred theory?' Why do you not say the truth when
it comes to the study of this science? Why do you
all lie, and say that SR proves there is no ether, or
there is no absolute reference?
So there is no real science to force anyone to
accept SR, it is only a 'vote' that you took, and you
just voted for it! Why are you not truthful with
all this? Why all these problems, when you could
just say that you just like one over the other?
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Why? Well, for one thing because it's simpler ...
O'Barr comments:
It is simpler? You mean, 4-D is simpler than 3-D?
You mean that breaks in symmetry are simpler than no
breaks? That jumps in times are simpler than no
jumps in times? You like all these 'back in time'
problems? You mean that all these paradoxes are
simpler than no paradoxes? You really mean all this?
Or do you only mean that the math is simpler? Do you
only mean that the deriving of the math is simpler?
I think you stink!
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> continues:
> ...and has straightforward extensions to include
>gravity and nuclear forces, . . .
O'Barr comments:
Yes, what a cop-out! GR is a natural for the
ether, and yet you ignore this. You not only ignore
this, you lie about it!
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> . . . but even if that weren't the case,
>the extraordinary implausibility of the LET
>assumptions (e.g. time dilation and length
>contraction) would be sufficient incentive to throw
>out that baby with the bathwater.
O'Barr comments:
And so, according to you, modern day physics does
not allow any changes in the rates of clocks or in
the lengths of rulers! And you forgot how you have
also redefined the mass of a photon to not exist.
I am sorry for you, because in all working areas,
the rates of clocks do change, and the lengths do
vary, as velocity varies. And again, you are not
saying any of the above from the results of an actual
test, or by any science. You are just saying that
you prefer your way of looking at it. What a mess
you are, for not even here pointing out all this!
<deletes>
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>The concept of "spacetime" in Relativity doesn't
>imply that space and time are the same (they're
>obviously not the same), but simply that
>they're not independent of one another.
O'Barr comments:
And this is the biggest lie of all! SR experts
have for too long of a time put themselves into a
fix, for saying over and over that there is a real 4-
D spacetime continuum. And again and again, there is
no science to it. They are just playing math games,
and forcing others to believe their lies! There is
no real 4-D, and now you are agreeing. But it is too
late. Your stupidity will always be upon you! Shame
on you all for not clearing this up by simply saying
that you were wrong!
Perspicacious
> O'Barr comments:
> Do not play games! I asked you if you were able
> to see and understood the points being made.
What is there to understand? It's obvious that you
believe in mechanistic philosophy and that I believe
in Shubertian philosophy.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/997d9bda45689959
> O'Barr comments:
> I certainly have a theory
> that includes a very simple 'mechanical' approach, a
> physical approach, an approach that has causes and
> effects, an approach that can be visualized and
> conceptualized and logically considered and used to
> formulate in our minds what our reality is all about.
Indeed, but what new axioms do you have from the
ancient presupposition of mechanistic philosophy
and what can you prove with those new axioms?
> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The philosophy of physics is in the math. There's
> >no separate place for it:
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Philosophy can be everywhere, where there is
> meaningful support to the base of a theory. If all
> you have is a math theory, then if there is any
> philosophy to the theory, then it would have to be in
> the math. But if you have a physical theory, then
> the philosophy would have to be in the physical base
> to the theory. You are dumb to say what you said
> above!
Determinism should be inherent in the equations of
physics if they were all formulated from a mechanistic
philosophy.
> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the
> >universe, ... But the book cannot be understood
> >unless one first learns to comprehend the language
> >and read the characters in which it is written. It
> >is written in the language of mathematics."
> >- Galileo Galilei.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> For some of us, we are only
> mathematicians, and for those with such limitations,
> we can only understand any existing philosophy only
> after it is reduced to math. Sorry about your sorry
> state, but that is what is being said above, and I
> agree! You are a hopeless case of being just a
> mathematician!
It's just a matter of a useful definition of physics.
There are reasons to separate clear well-defined
thinking and physics from useless mumbo-jumbo mysticism.
> > O'Barr (globarr) comments: . . .
> >> I see! You do not care to know or understand
> >> anything about what physically occurs? You do not
> >> care to know why c is a physical constant? You do
> >> not really care if there really is a 4-D or just a
> >> 3-D? All you care about is just getting the math
> >> answers?
>
> Perspicacious wrote:
> >Essentially, yes.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, at least you are an honest mathematician.
> All you care about is having the correct math
> answers!
Actually, my primary interest is in studying the
mathematical basics of many distinct models. The
importance of math models generating accurate
predictions I think of as coming in second. I
have no interest in studying inconsistent physical
theories.
> Knowing the actual cause or meaning to the
> answer is beyond your interest or capabilities!
I already know the actual cause and meaning but
there are good reasons in a pluralistic society
to always distinguish between physics and religious
philosophy.
> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >What's the value of untestable philosophy?
> >How could mathematically unquantifiable personal
> >speculations mean anything objectively? As I see it,
> >the value of any physical philosophy can only be
> >measured by the physics it generates. I, therefore,
> >have adopted a pragmatic definition of physics:
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, you have adopted something that is not
> physics. You have ran away from the physics. All
> you want is math, so that you can feel good about it.
> But this is wrong, and we will eventually get the
> physics back into our physics where it belongs!
There is already too much of your physics in physics.
I agree with Hilbert that physics should be axiomatized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Physics is the mathematical study of all
> >conceivable universes. A universe is a mathematical
> >model that describes spacetime, matter, energy and
> >their interactions.
> Look at your childish and stupid comments above:
> You say that physics is the mathematical study of all
> conceivable universes. What rot!
So you think that David Hilbert was childish and stupid?
> If any thinking person were given your words
> above, they would throw up (puke, vomit,
> regurgitate)! You sound like you are crazy, insane,
> saying things just to hear yourself talk. Your words
> have no logic, no common sense, no anything that
> would allow anyone to think that you have any
> thinking going on in your mind. It sounds like you
> have become crazy, thinking that you are living in
> some 5th dimension, in some non-normal world.
David Hilbert is respected by mathematicians and
physicists the world over. Who do you think created
general relativity for Einstein out of the axioms
that Einstein wanted?
Gerald L. O'Barr
>>
>>The very purpose of science is to deal with and solve problems!
Bilge wrote:
> Unfortunately, science is not yet able to solve your mental
>problems.
O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Hi Bilge! And is this all you wanted to say?
Yes, this appears to be all that you wanted to say!
At least, this is all you did say!
I guess you had to say something! You knew you
should say something. But in truth, you could not
say anything without being wrong.
So you said something wrong!
Thanks for being wrong again!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
And I am sorry that I did not post this to your
favorite site! Your efforts to misdirect this
post was just like you, deceitful, but what can
anyone expect of a person who knows they are wrong,
but will not change?
Gerald L. O'Barr
O'Barr special comments:
I cannot believe it!
What a great post you just wrote! You have proved
yourself to be a better man than I will ever be, and
certainly you are right, Hilbert would be impossible
for me to ever approach in any way. Thank you for
being so perfect, even against all my provocations!
<delete of many good things!>
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> . . . what new axioms do you have from the
>ancient presupposition of mechanistic philosophy
>and what can you prove with those new axioms?
O'Barr (globarr) comments:
In my at theory, I assume that all physical
interactions (collisions) that occur on the deepest
level of reality to involve spalls. These kinds of
interactions result in all matter (all matter that
interact on this level) to consist of the identical
nature of matter, since they are constantly
exchanging matter between them. (Constantly, to the
degree that collisions are constantly occurring.)
So what is a spall? A spall is where particle A
hits particle B, but does not bounce back. It
adheres to B (embeds itself into B), and a chuck of B
is driven off on the opposite side of B (opposite to
the hit side), so that all the dynamic properties of
mass, momentum and kinetic energy can be conserved.
But the important thing with such spalls, is that
the actual final result depends on the nature of the
spall produced. If the spall is the exact same
amount of mass as the colliding particle, there
appears no change in the body that was hit, and there
would also be no change in the spall that leaves, in
that it would have the same mass, energy, and
momentum of the body that had done the original
hitting. The net results is as if no collision at
all occurred! Yet there really was a collision,
there really was an interaction, but the results end
up as if no reaction at all occurred!
We now have the means of defining an ether, an
ether within which collisions occur everywhere, but
it is as if no collisions are present! It is a very
interesting base to work from.
All interesting results depend on whether or not
the spalls differ slightly in mass from the original
particles. And the spalls must follow certain well
defined limits: The average spall must be the same
as the average mass doing the hitting, or else one of
these particle will grow in size over time. So what
has to happen, in any steady state condition, is that
the only allowed variable is in the standard
deviation of the sizes of the spalls. I call this
the dispersion of sizes. And thus, around particles,
the dispersion of sizes of field particles can
differ, but not the total number of particles, or
even in their average mass.
And we find, with great pleasure, that changes in
the dispersion is sufficient to result in the
appearance of forces within such a medium. Any way,
these things I have confirmed, both by math
approximations, and by computer models. And for the
very first time, we even have an approach that allows
LeSage's type of attractive forces to exist, with
full conservation applied.
<deletes>
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> . . . my primary interest is in studying the
>mathematical basics of many distinct models. The
>importance of math models generating accurate
>predictions I think of as coming in second. I
>have no interest in studying inconsistent physical
>theories.
O'Barr comments:
Maybe an example of what you do would help.
You might not be interested in the physical
modeling I have done, but the math is important.
When a spall occurs, with a small change in the mass
of the two bodies that collide, the results produce a
non-linear math. We have linear math when two bodies
collide and bounce apart with the same mass as they
started. It is the non-linearity that results in the
appearance of forces.
Thanks again for such a perfect response!
RP
jem wrote:
I tend to disagree. The Minkowski metric equates them one to the other.
They are only different perspectives of the same 4D extension. On this
point O'Barr was correct in his response to me. OTOH, yes I do believe
that rotations can alter the time-like and space-like components, but I
don't believe that they are "converted", as he put it. That is nothing
more than his own interpretation.
Richard Perry
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> > "Perspicacious" wrote in message
> > news:1125972649.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> > > > Are you able to see and to understand all of my points?
> > >
> > > I believe that I understand you. You're dissatisfied with
> > > physics as a predictive, mathematical science. Your objective
> > > is to diminish it and exalt mechanistic philosophy above it.
> >
> > What do you mean with "mechanistic philosophy" and how can
> > physics be "diminished" by it, according to you?
>
> Physics is what it is, as I have defined it.
But see below.
> The musings
> of philosophers may lead us to physics but often times an
> unscientific and ignorant imagination doesn't even bring
> us to a good definition. It's insane to not even want a
> distinction between unquantifiable fantasies and physics.
>
> Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that
> no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying
> to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it
> possibly be like that?' because you will go down the drain
> into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody
> knows how it can be like that."
>
> I define 'mechanistic philosophy' as the belief in determinism,
> especially the belief that spacetime and everything in it can
> ultimately be described as we usually understand machines. I mean
> mechanistic in the extreme: The idea that the essential laws of
> physics--fields of force (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak
> and strong nuclear force), quantum theory, relativistic effects,
> the nature of time, the properties of matter and energy--are
> all derivable from a correct mechanical understanding of the
> aether fluid. Mechanical: All forces are contact forces and/or
> something else equally simplistic.
You believe that such attempts to make models will fail. Fine. Now how can
such attempts diminish physics?
For example: with thermodynamics, atomic models (without however a need to
understand what atoms are made of) were quite succesful, and I doubt that
any physicist would deem such attempts as "diminishing" physics. I'd call it
"enriching"!
> For example: If you believe that the earth moves in its orbit
> around the sun because the earth is stuck in a constantly flexing
> eddy of luminiferous fluid or, alternatively, is naturally sliding
> on a slippery spacetime fabric, then yes, you have embraced a
> mechanistic belief.
Sure - and we know that such Stokes' type ether models didn't work well, so
that Newton and Lorentz rejected them. The "slippery spacetime fabric" model
is new for me.
> > > The philosophy of physics is in the math. There's no separate
> > > place for it:
> > >
> > > "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, ...
> > > But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to
> > > comprehend the language and read the characters in which it
> > > is written. It is written in the language of mathematics."
> > > - Galileo Galilei.
> >
> > Hmm... We now know the math and comprehend the LT. So... Now what?
>
> Attaching physical meaning to the LT should be done with axioms.
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4271#4271
Axioms don't give me anything that I'd describe as "understanding".
> > We have done the "first" thing, according to Galileo, *after*
> > which we can try to understand it. But according to you we
> > should stop at the math ("the language"), and forget to make
> > sense out of it!
>
> Hopefully, axioms are chosen to be as irreducible as possible.
> What kind of sense do you want to find in the simplest axioms
> of SR known -- Newton's first law and the homogeneity of time?
Without an idea of what may be hidden behind it, I find it senseless ...
> > I'd say that physics is about describing things that can be
> > measured (the science), but attempting explanations by means
> > of models (the philosophy) is sometimes also included. Lengths
> > and durations belong to physics, but "Spacetime" belongs to
> > the explanations - which you reject.
>
> I don't know what you mean. Spacetime is a mathematical construct
> and I believe in the mathematization of physics.
We don't measure mathematical constructs, and physics is about observations
(thus measurements) of the real world.
Harald
jem
> jem wrote:
>
>>Galilean Relativity is consistent with Newton's 1st "law" and
>>homogeneous time. Therefore those 2 assumptions can't possibly
>>be sufficient to derive SR.
>
>
> Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity are consistent with
> Newton's 1st "law" and homogeneous time. They are both part of
> an infinite number of theories, the only difference between them
> being the value of the spacetime structure constant.
>
> Shubert says very clearly on page 8 of his paper that "the value
> of k can be determined experimentally."
Don't you feel silly referring to yourself in the 3rd person? And for
the 5th and last time, any derivation that doesn't exclude Galilean
Relativity isn't a derivation of Special Relativity.
I'm not your gofer, Shubert. If you want my previous comments, you find
them.
jem
You've demonstrated that you understand neither the theory you're
criticizing, nor Physics' theory/modelling process, but based on that
paranoid response of yours, it's apparent that trying to explain them to
you would be a waste of time. So go on throwing tantrums because you
can't find anyone who'll agree with you; at least you'll provide the NG
with a source of amusement.
jem
> jem wrote:
>> The concept of "spacetime" in Relativity doesn't imply that space and
>> time are the same (they're obviously not the same), but simply that
>> they're not independent of one another.
> I tend to disagree. The Minkowski metric equates them one to the other.
> They are only different perspectives of the same 4D extension.
Black and white aren't equated by the creation of grey. Don't presume
that models of Nature are Nature; two separate and distinct measurements
are needed in order to quantify spacetime.
Perspicacious
> Don't you feel silly referring to yourself in the 3rd person?
Bob Dole has a good time referring to Bob Dole as Bob Dole.
Don't you feel extraordinarily petty for never being able
to distinguish between well-understood conventions and the
substance of physics?
> And for the 5th and last time, any derivation that doesn't
> exclude Galilean Relativity isn't a derivation of Special
> Relativity.
You didn't answer my question. Why aren't you whining
to the American Journal of Physics about their publishing
a derivation of the Lorentz transformation that doesn't
automatically exclude Galilean relativity?
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001
Do you really think that your comment has positive value?
I have another question. How dare anyone derive the class of
all special relativity theories consistent with Newton's first
law of motion and time homogeneity and call the collection
special relativity without your express approval and consent?
Your small-minded objections are so obviously picayune and
shallow that you must think that Einstein has a patent on
the phrase 'special relativity.'
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> I'm not your gofer, Shubert. If you want my previous
> comments, you find them.
Why do you waste people's time by making grossly ignorant
and worthless claims and then expect readers to search
'who knows where' for confirmation?
RP
I understand your PoV completely, but I was suggesting exactly the same
to you. You see it as a shade of gray, depending upon the blend of black
and white, but the 4D displacement is invariant, IOW only one shade of
gray. Rotation changes both the time-like and space-like components because
1) the distinction between the two is a product of the imagination
enhanced by indoctrination.
2) they are actually one and the same in the same sense that the
centripetal and gravitational forces on an orbiting planet are one and
the same force. We consider only a specific component of the
gravitational force as the centripetal force, namely that component
acting perpendicular to the motion of the mass. IOW, though there is
only one force acting on the planet we perceive two, because we, by
convention, are looking at the same force from two different
perspectives (or *angles* in this case).
There is no passage of time in the block universe, time is just our
interpretation of changes in relative position of points along
world-lines when considering successive 3D cross sections of the 4D matrix.
Richard Perry
Harry
OK I found it back, it's H. Erlichson in AJP vol 41, p.1068, 1973 (quite a
few years ago!).
He stated that the theories of Lorentz and Einstein are "generally
equivalent since they both lead to the Lorentz transformations".
By relying on later sources his historical discussion was distorted, and he
mistakenly thought that a one-way experiment could possibly detect a
difference between the two.
Cheers,
Harald
Perspicacious
You're taking me out of context. I have said nothing against
the study of deterministic physics. It would be against my
definition. I was addressing O'Barr and said that he was
"dissatisfied with physics as a predictive, mathematical
science" and that his "objective" was "to diminish it and
exalt mechanistic philosophy above it."
He seems to have relented somewhat so I'll argue instead
that the diminishing of physics applies to you.
How do you diminish physics? A. S. Wightman said, "A great
physical theory is not mature until it has been put in a
precise mathematical form, and it is often only in such
a mature form that it admits clear answers to conceptual
problems."
I interpret you labeling as senseless the simplest and most
irreducible axioms possible for the axiomatization of special
relativity as you being intolerant of precision, clarity,
fundamentals, and the axiomatization of physics.
> > Attaching physical meaning to the LT should be done with axioms.
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4271#4271
>
> Axioms don't give me anything that I'd describe as "understanding".
Many physicists find comfort in large, complicated objects that
they can feel and experience.
> > > We have done the "first" thing, according to Galileo, *after*
> > > which we can try to understand it. But according to you we
> > > should stop at the math ("the language"), and forget to make
> > > sense out of it!
> >
> > Hopefully, axioms are chosen to be as irreducible as possible.
> > What kind of sense do you want to find in the simplest axioms
> > of SR known -- Newton's first law and the homogeneity of time?
>
> Without an idea of what may be hidden behind it, I find it senseless ...
Most physicists probably find it senseless because they're
fixated on finding a theory of everything, and in pretending
that they have almost reached it, so it's very understandable
that they're completely disinterested in examining what they
really know, which is very little.
> > > I'd say that physics is about describing things that can be
> > > measured (the science), but attempting explanations by means
> > > of models (the philosophy) is sometimes also included. Lengths
> > > and durations belong to physics, but "Spacetime" belongs to
> > > the explanations - which you reject.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean. Spacetime is a mathematical
> > construct and I believe in the mathematization of physics.
>
> We don't measure mathematical constructs, and physics is about
> observations (thus measurements) of the real world.
Measurement can be axiomatized. Your real objection is against
axiomatization.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>jem wrote:
>> RP wrote:
>>> . . .
>jem wrote:
>> . . . Don't presume that models of Nature are
>> Nature; two separate and distinct measurements
>> are needed in order to quantify spacetime.
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
The most difficult problem I have with SR experts
seems to be hid in this one concept: The separation
of the models of nature that we used, from nature
itself. Therefore, I love your statement: 'Don't
presume that models of Nature are Nature.' To me
this is the key to almost all our problems, being
able to keep separate in our minds the differences
between the models we might be using, verse what
nature itself might be.
Models of nature are on at least two different
levels: just math models, where math functions and
relationships are directly used to predict the
results of tests, or physical models that are used,
upon which math models are eventually developed. An
example of just a math model is Newton's law of
gravity. F = G*M1*M2/r^2 is just a math
relationship, that is a very good relationship, and
is used even today. Being just a math model, it
provides to us no understanding of why or how gravity
forces are produced. It only provides to us
predictive answers.
An example of a physical model is the kinetic
theory of gases. This assumes the existence of
particle of masses colliding in specific ways. From
this physical model, we are able to obtain the PV =
nRT math relationship. A physical based model is
much more solid than just a math relationship.
Having the physical base to the math allows one to
understand the limits of the math, the very
definition of the math variables used, the boundaries
where it would apply and where it might break down.
The understanding that comes with the physical
base allows one to understand the theory one level
deeper than when one only has the math. SR and GR
are only math models. It does not matter how perfect
they are, as math models, as long as they are only
math models, they cannot provide to us any
understanding as to why or how they work.
For example, in SR, it is based upon c being a
math constant, and the form of the math being the
same in all reference frames. Being thus just math,
it cannot give us any understanding why c is a
constant, nor why the math form is the same. It just
is not possible, because of the form of model that it
represents. This makes it a weak theory, and
certainly cannot be the theory we should be satisfied
with.
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote (to jem):
> . . . the 4D displacement is invariant . . . .
>Rotation changes both the time-like and space-like
>components because
>1) the distinction between the two is a product of
>the imagination enhanced by indoctrination.
>
O'Barr comments:
Since about 1960, a consistent effort has been
made by physics professors to teach 4-D as a real
existing reality. It was and still is
indoctrination. It is pure imagination. There is no
science attached to it at all.
RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote (to jem):
>2) they are actually one and the same in the same
>sense that the centripetal and gravitational forces
>on an orbiting planet are one and the same force. We
>consider only a specific component of the
>gravitational force as the centripetal force, namely
>that component acting perpendicular to the motion of
>the mass. IOW, though there is only one force acting
>on the planet we perceive two, because we, by
>convention, are looking at the same force from two
>different perspectives (or *angles* in this case).
O'Barr comments:
But in the real world, we do all know that there
are differences between true gravity effects and
centripetal forces. What we measure might always be
a combined effect. But by the power of our
understanding, we really know what is going on. We
can say, with no questions allowed, that the
Mississippi River really does flow uphill, that is,
against gravity! The outflow of this river into the
ocean is farther from the center of the earth than
its head waters. The impetus to this flow is this
centripetal force due to the spin of the earth!
And in this exact same way, we know, without
question, that space and time are not
interchangeable, and there is no 4-D as taught in SR,
and LET is superior. Anyone who is able to keep the
differences between models and reality, and the
differences between just math models from physical
models, knows all this. And no thinking person can
question what is being said!
Bilge
>
> "We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz
> transformation by invoking the principle of relativity
> alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of
> the existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a
> velocity is shown to be a necessary consequence of the
> first postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite
> is borne out by experiment."
>http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?
prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001
posts as far as you like and see that Ive pointed that out.
It's your own idea of how to do that which is being criticized.
>Why aren't you complaining to the AJP for publishing the
>paper, "Lorentz transformations from the first postulate"?
Because the publishers didn't publish your article and
what someone else wrote is not the issue. Someone else is
likely to have done a decent job of the derivation.
[*snip self-serving bullshit*]
Bilge
>> "Perspicacious" wrote in message
>> news:1125972649.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
>> > > Are you able to see and to understand all of my points?
>> >
>> > I believe that I understand you. You're dissatisfied with
>> > physics as a predictive, mathematical science. Your objective
>> > is to diminish it and exalt mechanistic philosophy above it.
>>
>> What do you mean with "mechanistic philosophy" and how can
>> physics be "diminished" by it, according to you?
>
>Physics is what it is, as I have defined it.
So, now you are claiming to be god? Ok god, could tell us what
the rest of the physics we're missing happens to be? I'd really
like to know? For example, do protons decay? How long does that take?
Harry
I had not noticed that part. Fine.
> He seems to have relented somewhat so I'll argue instead
> that the diminishing of physics applies to you.
Why would you do that? Do you like to argue for nothing?
> How do you diminish physics? A. S. Wightman said, "A great
> physical theory is not mature until it has been put in a
> precise mathematical form, and it is often only in such
> a mature form that it admits clear answers to conceptual
> problems."
I wouldn't call that "diminishing" at all.
> I interpret you labeling as senseless the simplest and most
> irreducible axioms possible for the axiomatization of special
> relativity as you being intolerant of precision, clarity,
> fundamentals, and the axiomatization of physics.
You may misinterpret it as you like. I have no use nor need of those axioms
for precision, nor do I find any "clarity" in them, such things are a matter
of taste. But if it helps you, fine for you.
> > > Attaching physical meaning to the LT should be done with axioms.
> > > http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4271#4271
> >
> > Axioms don't give me anything that I'd describe as "understanding".
>
> Many physicists find comfort in large, complicated objects that
> they can feel and experience.
>
> > > > We have done the "first" thing, according to Galileo, *after*
> > > > which we can try to understand it. But according to you we
> > > > should stop at the math ("the language"), and forget to make
> > > > sense out of it!
> > >
> > > Hopefully, axioms are chosen to be as irreducible as possible.
> > > What kind of sense do you want to find in the simplest axioms
> > > of SR known -- Newton's first law and the homogeneity of time?
> >
> > Without an idea of what may be hidden behind it, I find it senseless ...
>
> Most physicists probably find it senseless because they're
> fixated on finding a theory of everything, and in pretending
> that they have almost reached it,
That's a weird claim - certainly wrong.
> so it's very understandable
> that they're completely disinterested in examining what they
> really know, which is very little.
>
> > > > I'd say that physics is about describing things that can be
> > > > measured (the science), but attempting explanations by means
> > > > of models (the philosophy) is sometimes also included. Lengths
> > > > and durations belong to physics, but "Spacetime" belongs to
> > > > the explanations - which you reject.
> > >
> > > I don't know what you mean. Spacetime is a mathematical
> > > construct and I believe in the mathematization of physics.
> >
> > We don't measure mathematical constructs, and physics is about
> > observations (thus measurements) of the real world.
>
> Measurement can be axiomatized. Your real objection is against
> axiomatization.
As long as we recognize that it means a bunch of assumptions, it is helpful
to build theories on them. That's how physics works...
Harald
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious:
> > "We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz
> > transformation by invoking the principle of relativity
> > alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of
> > the existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a
> > velocity is shown to be a necessary consequence of the
> > first postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite
> > is borne out by experiment."
>
> posts as far as you like and see that Ive pointed that out.
> It's your own idea of how to do that which is being criticized.
The most frequently repeated criticisms have been answered.
It is a matter of record in the google archives that the rebuttal
is so perfectly irrefutable that it has turned one seemingly
knowledgeable physicist into an ugly, uncontrollably vicious,
permanently irrational troll. It's all documented here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/96abd3c572a0082b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8006baf1a1b23133
jem
> jem wrote:
>>Don't you feel silly referring to yourself in the 3rd person?
> Bob Dole has a good time referring to Bob Dole as Bob Dole.
> Don't you feel extraordinarily petty for never being able
> to distinguish between well-understood conventions and the
> substance of physics?
Far be it from me to stand in the way of your having a good time.
>>And for the 5th and last time, any derivation that doesn't
>>exclude Galilean Relativity isn't a derivation of Special
>>Relativity.
> You didn't answer my question.
Yes I did. 5 times in fact.
Why aren't you whining
> to the American Journal of Physics about their publishing
> a derivation of the Lorentz transformation that doesn't
> automatically exclude Galilean relativity?
> http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001
Identifying your mistakes is hardly whining, and it's irrelevant whether
or not anyone else made the same mistake.
> Do you really think that your comment has positive value?
Sure, unless of course you prefer being wrong to being corrected.
> I have another question. How dare anyone derive the class of
> all special relativity theories consistent with Newton's first
> law of motion and time homogeneity and call the collection
> special relativity without your express approval and consent?
Do you really need it explained to you why it's not a good idea to make
up your own definitions for commonly used terms?
> Your small-minded objections are so obviously picayune and
> shallow that you must think that Einstein has a patent on
> the phrase 'special relativity.'
SR isn't distinguished by the "homogeneity of time", as you seem to
think, but by the Minkowskian metric.
>>I'm not your gofer, Shubert. If you want my previous
>>comments, you find them.
> Why do you waste people's time by making grossly ignorant
> and worthless claims and then expect readers to search
> 'who knows where' for confirmation?
Is this an example of Shubertian logic? I.e. just because you are
incapable of finding the responses to your own posts without assistance,
you infer that my comment about having "already provided you with a
number of criticisms/suggestions" is a "grossly ignorant and worthless
claim".
jem
> jem wrote:
>> RP wrote:
>>> jem wrote:
>>>> The concept of "spacetime" in Relativity doesn't imply that space
>>>> and time are the same (they're obviously not the same), but simply
>>>> that they're not independent of one another.
>>> I tend to disagree. The Minkowski metric equates them one to the
>>> other. They are only different perspectives of the same 4D extension.
>> Black and white aren't equated by the creation of grey. Don't presume
>> that models of Nature are Nature; two separate and distinct
>> measurements are needed in order to quantify spacetime.
> I understand your PoV completely,
I don't think so, but my POV is very simple; until a single instrument
is produced that measures spacetime, both a clock and a ruler will be
needed (i.e. distinct measurements of space and time).
jem
When you distinguish between "math models" and "physical models" you're
making a distinction without a difference. All physical models (i.e.
models of Nature) contain underlying axiomatic systems (i.e. math),
where the math is the logical framework that enables the values of
real-world measurements to be inferred from underlying sets of assumptions.
The only links between Nature and models of Nature are the measurements
that are made with various instruments, and although it's true that the
models provide nothing but "predictive answers" concerning those
measurements, it's because it isn't possible to infer any more than that
about the functioning of Nature. E.g. in the above you talked about
understanding gravity. Well, gravity is just the name for some defined
mechanism within a model, and as such it can be understood perfectly.
However, that perfect understanding isn't going to reveal any more about
Nature than what readings will appear on which instruments in which
circumstances.
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious wrote:
>> Why aren't you whining to the American Journal of
>> Physics about their publishing a derivation of the
>> Lorentz transformation that doesn't automatically
>> exclude Galilean relativity?
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001
> ...it's irrelevant whether or not anyone else made the same mistake.
What is relevant is that you're hounding me and not them.
> Do you really need it explained to you why it's not a good idea
> to make up your own definitions for commonly used terms?
That's still a good question for the AJP. And you should seriously
consider reforming your picayune ways and explain why you're
hounding me and not them.
Guess what kind of response you would get if you were to ask the
AJP why they published a paper that calls a general Lorentzian
transformation, the Lorentz transformation. I know what they'd
be thinking: "Idiots know, and are so eager to point out, that
there is no way to determine the spacetime structure constant
'by invoking the principle of relativity alone'."
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001
I'll answer the question that you refuse to answer. So why is
the AJP being so careless and imprecise with commonly used
terms? Perhaps they want to give trolls a thrill.
> SR isn't distinguished by the "homogeneity of time", as you
> seem to think, but by the Minkowskian metric.
SR, MR and your picayune personality may be distinguished and
accurately characterized in many distinct ways.
Gerald L. O'Barr
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
<deletes by O'Barr>
jem wrote:
>When you distinguish between "math models" and
>"physical models" you're making a distinction
>without a difference. All physical models (i.e.
>models of Nature) contain underlying axiomatic
>systems (i.e. math), where the math is the logical
>framework that enables the values of real-world
>measurements to be inferred from underlying sets of
>assumptions.
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
I believe I understand what you are saying.
Certainly in the physical model for the kinetic
theory of gases, there is math within the physical
model. Math is everywhere. But what must be seen is
that the physical part of the model is real, whether
there is math within or not! It is the physical
framework that allows the math to have meaning, even
within the base. And it is the physical model that
governs the math, not the math the physical. Thus,
it is not a distinction without a difference, as you
are trying to infer.
For a specific example, in the kinetic theory of
gases, it is the physical size of the particles that
involve the mean free path, and it is the number of
independent particles that allow certain variables to
remain a constant. These physical limitations are
valuable to the concept, and because they do interact
with the math, and interact independently, and in
multiple ways, the power of these statistics become
over-whelming, and requires us to accept the
approach. Pure math cannot do all this!
jem wrote:
>The only links between Nature and models of Nature
>are the measurements that are made with various
>instruments, and although it's true that the
>models provide nothing but "predictive answers"
>concerning those measurements, it's because it isn't
>possible to infer any more than that about the
>functioning of Nature.
O'Barr comments:
I think you need to put your feet on the ground,
not in your mouth! Man has an intellect. And when
we begin to have a set of over-lapping, independent,
self-supporting, verifications and confirmations of
certain assumptions, it would be stupid not to
eventually reach the point where such things are
accepted as being correct! There is power in being
correct, and it results in all other things giving it
support. And we cannot ignore such favorable
situations when they occur! Nature is not beyond our
reach. How dare you say something when there is no
test and no test result that requires such a
conclusion! All that can so far be supported is our
ignorance of things, but that is all! You are
supposing something for which there is no evidence,
and no way to support it.
jem wrote:
>E.g. in the above you talked about understanding
>gravity. Well, gravity is just the name for some
>defined mechanism within a model, . . .
O'Barr comments:
Not in my book. To me, gravity is not just a
made-up word to be applied just to a man-made model.
Gravity is a very real effect found in nature, and it
must have a cause, and we should be able to find out
its cause!
I personally believe that the at theory provides
to us a correct physical model for the effects of
gravity. It shows us that gravity, like all other
known forces, come in both positive and negative
modes. However, gravity is one of the more unique
forces, in that in any one region of space, the force
of gravity is only positive or only negative. For
most other forces, the positive and negative effects
can exist side by side, in the same region of space.
But gravity, around other particles of matter, is
attractive only. But out in deep space, where there
are no other particles of mass within a certain
distance, gravity becomes negative (space becomes
negative.) This can be seen by how stars are
distributed in space, when you get way above the
galaxy range. We see a 'honey comb' design where
deep centers of space push most other stars away.
All of this is a function of the effective mean
free paths of certain ether particles, and whether
these ether particles are in a mode of being above or
below their normal variances (distribution) in size
(mass.) It is the gradient of the variance that
determines the direction and size of the force.
Matter always increases the variance, pure space
(where the only interactions is where ether particles
interact with ether particles - a very rare act) acts
to reduce the variance.
Gerald L. O'Barr
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>RP wrote:
>> jem wrote:
>>>> jem wrote:
<deletes by O'Barr>
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> . . . my POV is very simple; until a single
>instrument is produced that measures spacetime, both
>a clock and a ruler will be needed (i.e. distinct
>measurements of space and time).
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
You are exactly correct! As far as reality goes,
as far as modern-day testing goes, there is no such
thing as a 4-D detector! All that anyone can do is
to either measure space (a simple 3-D function) or to
measure time. There are no other choices!
And guess what! According to LET, these are also
the only choices that exist! And these will always
be the only choices that will exist! SR is a sick
and a terrible wrong way to look at things, it just
is not what is seen or experienced. LET is perfect,
and what LET says is what we measure, and what is
seen, and observed, exactly, completely, and never do
we see what is said in SR! There is no 4-D at any
time, under any condition, under any measurement tool
that has ever been created or used!
<all deleted by O'Barr - and all the other words too>
Thanks for reading!
jem
I think what you're trying to say is "thanks for pointing out my
misconception". You're welcome.
jem
You're guilty of doing what you accuse others of doing, i.e. confusing
Nature with models of Nature. E.g. all the elements of the Kinetic
Theory of Gases are manufactured - the particles and their collisions
simply represent an image (i.e. an Interpretation) of the mathematics
that is the theory. There's no presumption that these particles
actually exist Nature - there's just no way to test that. In fact, it's
conceivable that somewhere down the rosd a better model will be
developed which describes the phenomena (e.g. the readings on
thermometers and barometers) using entirely different imagery.
jem
> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>. . . my POV is very simple; until a single
>>instrument is produced that measures spacetime, both
>>a clock and a ruler will be needed (i.e. distinct
>>measurements of space and time).
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
> You are exactly correct! As far as reality goes,
> as far as modern-day testing goes, there is no such
> thing as a 4-D detector! All that anyone can do is
> to either measure space (a simple 3-D function) or to
> measure time. There are no other choices!
> And guess what! According to LET, these are also
> the only choices that exist! And these will always
> be the only choices that will exist! SR is a sick
> and a terrible wrong way to look at things, it just
> is not what is seen or experienced.
Your reaction isn't surprising (since you've made it quite clear in this
thread that you don't understand the role of models in Physics), but
Relativity's use of spacetime is simply one way of describing the
relationship between the space and time measurements of relatively
moving observers.
LET is perfect,
> and what LET says is what we measure, and what is
> seen, and observed, exactly, completely, and never do
> we see what is said in SR! There is no 4-D at any
> time, under any condition, under any measurement tool
> that has ever been created or used!
Nonsense. SR predicts exactly the same measurements that LET does.
RP
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> In <EoWTe.3545$Zp.2762@lakeread04>
> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>RP wrote:
>>
>>>jem wrote:
>>>
>>>>RP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>jem wrote:
>
>
> <deletes by O'Barr>
>
> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>. . . my POV is very simple; until a single
>>instrument is produced that measures spacetime, both
>>a clock and a ruler will be needed (i.e. distinct
>>measurements of space and time).
>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
> You are exactly correct! As far as reality goes,
> as far as modern-day testing goes, there is no such
> thing as a 4-D detector! All that anyone can do is
> to either measure space (a simple 3-D function) or to
> measure time. There are no other choices!
> And guess what! According to LET, these are also
> the only choices that exist!
But this is incorrect. All of experimental and practical physics can be
conducted without access to either a measuring stick or clock. The
null-geodesic of the photon is a direct measure of space-time. If you
want to break that measurement down into space-like and time-like
components so that you can perform Galilean computations that's fine.
But it isn't necessary. A light-beam can be used to extract the
space-time displacements of elements in the system, relative initial and
final invariant 4D displacements noted, and then reduce to 3D plus time
coordinates for any chosen FoR.
Time is the inverse of frequency for any given wavelet (or photon),
length is in turn freq/c. These components are in turn defined by NIST as:
1 Second: the time required for a light signal to propagate a distance
of 299,792,458 meters in free space.
1 Meter: the distance traversed by a light signal in 1/299,792,458 seconds
We are still stuck in the Galilean convention, the Lorentz
transformation being a transformation between Galilean frames of
reference. Minkowski's formalism bypasses that step, dealing directly
with 4D displacements. I'm afraid that jem hasn't grasped the concept
and reality of 4D either.
Richard Perry
Gerald L. O'Barr
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
>>
<deletes by O'Barr>
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>You're guilty of doing what you accuse others of
>doing, i.e. confusing Nature with models of Nature.
>E.g. all the elements of the Kinetic Theory of Gases
>are manufactured - the particles and their
>collisions simply represent an image (i.e. an
>Interpretation) of the mathematics that is the
>theory. There's no presumption that these particles
>actually exist Nature - there's just no way to test
>that. In fact, it's conceivable that somewhere down
>the rosd a better model will be developed which
>describes the phenomena (e.g. the readings on
>thermometers and barometers) using entirely
>different imagery.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
I do not know why you said a single thing up
above. You said:
>all the elements of the Kinetic Theory of Gases are
>manufactured - the particles and their collisions
>simply represent an image (i.e. an Interpretation)
>of the mathematics that is the theory.
This is absolutely true. What did I say that said
anything differently than this? All theories, pure
math theories and physical based theories, like the
kinetic theory of gases, are made up by human thought
and reason. And it does not matter whether one has a
pure math theory, or a physical based theory, they
are all subject to change, to improvements, and to
actually rejection and replacement. So exactly what
is the point you are trying to make? It makes no
sense to me. But when you do have a theory that has
a physical base, and find it to have the self
consistency as the kinetic theory of gases has, where
there is a multiplicity of independent confirmations
and correlations, then you know that the assumptions
are very sound.
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>There's no presumption that these particles actually
>exist (in) Nature - there's just no way to test
>that.
O'Barr comments:
I find this to be strange. Are you saying that
atoms do not exist? Are you saying that we cannot
know that atoms exist? I find that the kinetic
theory of gases is a good match with atoms and
molecules, and one confirms the other as much as the
reverse, which is good. Did you get lost somewhere?
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>In fact, it's conceivable that somewhere down the
>rosd a better model will be developed which
>describes the phenomena (e.g. the readings on
>thermometers and barometers) using entirely
>different imagery.
O'Barr comments:
Well, certainly, we can tell ourselves that
anything and everything is possible. But this is
science, and we are obligated to know what is more
possible or probable, and what is less possible or
probable. Again, I just do not know why you are
saying the things you are saying. Maybe you have ran
out of things to say, so now you are saying anything?
This is not good when it comes to science!
Again, might I suggest that you do a reality check
with your thinking. And then we can get down to
seeing the basic differences between just a math
theory, and those theories that have a physical base.
And then we can see how SR (and GR) is one of these
pure math theories, and how LET is a physical based
theory. And then we would know how to judge between
these two theories!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:>>>... my POV is very simple; until a single
>>>instrument is produced that measures spacetime,
>>>both a clock and a ruler will be needed (i.e.
>>>distinct measurements of space and time).
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
>> You are exactly correct! As far as reality goes,
>> as far as modern-day testing goes, there is no
>> such thing as a 4-D detector! All that anyone can
>> do is to either measure space (a simple 3-D
>> function) or to measure time. There are no other
>> choices!
>> And guess what! According to LET, these are
>> also the only choices that exist! And these will
>> always
>> be the only choices that will exist! SR is a sick
>> and a terrible wrong way to look at things, it
>> just is not what is seen or experienced.
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Your reaction isn't surprising (since you've made it
>quite clear in this thread that you don't understand
>the role of models in Physics), but Relativity's use
>of spacetime is simply one way of describing the
>relationship between the space and time measurements
>of relatively moving observers.
O'Barr comments:
Well, this is refreshing. As long as you accept
SR as just being a math way of doing physics, you are
at least being honest. What I cannot stand is this
feeling given on this net (and in almost all
references) that not only is this one way of doing
it, but that SR proves there is no absolute reference
frame, and therefore there is no ether, and there is
a real 4-D spacetime continuum!
O'Barr wrote:
>> LET is perfect,
>> and what LET says is what we measure, and what is
>> seen, and observed, exactly, completely, and never
>> do we see what is said in SR! There is no 4-D at
>> any time, under any condition, under any
>> measurement tool that has ever been created or
>> used!
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Nonsense. SR predicts exactly the same measurements
>that LET does.
O'Barr comments:
And what beautiful thoughts! Yes, SR predicts
exactly the same measurements. But all of LET
measurements are always in simple 3-D space and
simple 1-D time, with never any need for any real
breaks in symmetry, or any real jumps in time. While
SR has to live with all these things.
It is so good to hear you say these things. Back
in 1997, I think that Roberts was the only person who
was willing to say these important things. Of
course, he liked to hide what he said by adding such
thoughts that there were an infinite number of
theories that would all do the same thing, so it
wasn't anything special, etc. But LET is the only
approach that is physically proper, and thus LET is
special, and is important!
So thank you for saying this. But even today, the
FAQ is not willing to say this, and many still on
this net, like Bilge, still runs away from it. But
it is true, and correct, and the day will come when
LET will be seen to be superior to SR.
Thanks for reading,
Gerald L. O'Barr
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>
<deletes by O'Barr>
>> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>. . . my POV is very simple; until a single
>>>instrument is produced that measures spacetime,
>>>both a clock and a ruler will be needed (i.e.
>>>distinct measurements of space and time).
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
>> You are exactly correct! As far as reality
>>goes, as far as modern-day testing goes, there is
>>no such thing as a 4-D detector! All that anyone
>>can do is to either measure space (a simple 3-D
>>function) or to measure time. There are no other
>>choices!
>> And guess what! According to LET, these are
>>also the only choices that exist!
Richard Perry wrote:
>But this is incorrect. All of experimental and
>practical physics can be conducted without access to
>either a measuring stick or clock. The null-
>geodesic of the photon is a direct measure of space-
>time.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
Many things can certainly be in anyone's mind.
But scientifically speaking, it is scientific to use
rulers and clocks, and it is scientific to know and
to understand what place clocks and rulers play in
our present-day science. So no matter what you say
about what you might want to think and do, that in no
way invalidates the points being made. There is no
way that any known instrument can measure 4-D! If
there really were a way to do this, then LET would be
dead as a science. But LET is not dead as a science.
And thus what is being said here is valid, and must
be understood as science!
As a good double check, how would LET account for
what is seen in the example you gave? Why don't you
specify a specific measurement or process, and let us
see exactly how they compare!
Richard Perry wrote:
>If you want to break that measurement down into
>space-like and time-like components so that you can
>perform Galilean computations that's fine.
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Not only is it fine, it is perfect! It is exact.
It can always be done. In fact, it must always be
able to be done because and exactly because LET does
not allow anything else to be done!
Richard Perry wrote:
>But it isn't necessary.
O'Barr comments:
The point is not that you have to do it, but that
you can always do it. You must be able to do it
under all circumstances! Certainly, anyone at any
time can use more than one way to solve a problem in
terms of the math that is used, but the physical
reality cannot change just because you find that you
can use 4-D math to do the same thing that you can do
in 3-D math.
Richard Perry wrote:
>A light-beam can be used to extract the space-time
>displacements of elements in the system, relative
>initial and final invariant 4D displacements noted,
>and then reduce to 3D plus time coordinates for any
>chosen FoR.
O'Barr comments:
Absolutely, exactly as stated. But again, what
you can do with 4-D math, to represent 3-D math, is
totally immaterial to the discussion. Math is not
reality, just as reality is not math. And you have
no evidence at all that our actually reality is 4-D.
Absolutely zero! Now if you had a physical
situation which could not be reduced to 3-D, then you
might have at least a reason to suppose that reality
might not be 3-D. But this is not your situation,
and you better understand how important this fact is
when we try to understand our reality!
In science, you should usually pick the easiest
and the simplest way, and 3-D is by far physically
simpler than 4-D, and should be scientifically
recognized as being the preferred physical approach!
The fact that 4-D math is simpler has no meaning in
this analysis of reality! We are free to use any
math we prefer to use, but reality stands on its own,
and we have no choice in what it is!
<O'Barr delete of all the standard scientific
comments about light, which as was noted, was all
done in simple 3-D>
RP
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
They were done in 3D plus time because in any FoR 4D can be disassembled
into 3D plus time. Now I'll try again:
The force of gravity on a planet in an elliptic orbit can be decomposed
into lateral and longitudinal components, and these will differ writ
frames of reference. This doesn't mean that the force of gravity differs
from frame to frame (staying within the context of Newtonian gravity).
When you break down the 4D interval into 3D plus time you are doing
exactly the same thing, i.e. providing a frame dependent *perspective*.
This is the embodiment of Minkowski's theory. IOW, there is nothing real
about either component, as in there is nothing absolute about them. Thus
the reality is something other than 3D plus time, and is thus 4D. QED.
Richard Perry
Gerald L. O'Barr
<deletes by O'Barr>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <O'Barr delete of all the standard scientific
>> comments about light, which as was noted, was all
>> done in simple 3-D>
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
You are giving me much more attention than I
deserve. Let me say it again:
It is true, that in 3-D plus time, that which is
measured is (can be, often is) different in different
frames, exactly as it occurs in SR, when SR is
reduced to 3-D plus time. But in LET, in the one and
only frame in which the ether is at relative rest,
this is the only frame in which what is measured is
always what reality really is, and thus, there are
theoretically never any physical problems in this
theory. And thus, there is absolutely zero reason or
need for a 4-D! QED!
To repeat this again: In LET, real changes in
lengths of rulers and real changes in rates of
clocks, along with man made changes in sync, allow
for measurements of reality to be different than what
actual reality might be, frame by frame. And thus
LET explains SR, as to why we measure what is
measured. But within LET, true reality is correctly
measured within the special frame in which there are
no changes in our rulers and clocks. Thus, any
differences between frames are directly explained in
LET (both for itself and for SR), and in no way is a
4-D spacetime continuum required to make this
explanation!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
P.S. I am sure that we do not differ in what we
know, or think about these things. I am not just
fast enough to say it the way you think I should say
it! Sorry about that!
But it is clear that LET is the stronger theory.
It has no breaks in symmetry, no jumps in time, and
it allows the potential for cause and effects in all
it proposes. LET provides to us explanations both
for itself and for SR, and thus it is, in all ways,
the superior approach! LET takes place in the
simplest of 3-D space, with the simplest of Newtonian
like kinetics, the simplest of physical explanations,
the simplest of logic and human understanding. In
all ways, it just cannot be beat! And for all these
reasons, it is has to be accepted as the superior
theory. Besides, GR needs an ether! QM needs an
ether. It has to happen sooner or later!
RP
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
You have no idea what LET is or says. It's the same fucking theory.
Now as a rule in general, i.e. *as an absolute rule* if a thing isn't
absolute (which translates as *invariant*), then it isn't real, ok? Even
in LET the durations and the 3D distances aren't absolute. Reality is
undeniably 4D. There is no preferred frame in LET. LET = Special Relativity.
Richard Perry
jem
Both an absolute reference frame and ether exist in LET, and a 4-D
spacetime continuum exists in SR. These things exist due to the
imaginative processes of people, but it doesn't make sense to even
speculate about the existence of things in Nature, since such existence
is unverifiable - all that can be verified are our interactions with
Nature (i.e. the measurements made by our instruments).
Your behind the times; that vertict's already been returned, and the SR
approach has been deemed superior. Frankly, the reason you've given for
preferring LET (physical explanation vs. only math) is frivolous. All
models use math in exactly the same way (i.e. to logically infer
measurements), and no models are able to explain the functioning of
Nature (all that can be explained is the functioning of the models).
jem
> In <a6fUe.12859$Zp.4866@lakeread04>
> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
>>
>
> <deletes by O'Barr>
>
> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>You're guilty of doing what you accuse others of
>>doing, i.e. confusing Nature with models of Nature.
>>E.g. all the elements of the Kinetic Theory of Gases
>>are manufactured - the particles and their
>>collisions simply represent an image (i.e. an
>>Interpretation) of the mathematics that is the
>>theory. There's no presumption that these particles
>>actually exist Nature - there's just no way to test
>>that. In fact, it's conceivable that somewhere down
>>the rosd a better model will be developed which
>>describes the phenomena (e.g. the readings on
>>thermometers and barometers) using entirely
>>different imagery.
>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> I do not know why you said a single thing up
> above.
Neither do I - above or below.
They exist in models of Nature, widgets with defined behaviors,
constructed for the sole purpose of predicting/reproducing measurents of
natural phenomena.
I find that the kinetic
> theory of gases is a good match with atoms and
> molecules, and one confirms the other as much as the
> reverse, which is good.
All models are a good match for Nature in the sense that they reproduce
our measurements, but not in the sense that the contrived model entities
actually exist in Nature.
Did you get lost somewhere?
>
> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>In fact, it's conceivable that somewhere down the
>>rosd a better model will be developed which
>>describes the phenomena (e.g. the readings on
>>thermometers and barometers) using entirely
>>different imagery.
>
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Well, certainly, we can tell ourselves that
> anything and everything is possible. But this is
> science, and we are obligated to know what is more
> possible or probable, and what is less possible or
> probable. Again, I just do not know why you are
> saying the things you are saying. Maybe you have ran
> out of things to say, so now you are saying anything?
> This is not good when it comes to science!
>
> Again, might I suggest that you do a reality check
> with your thinking. And then we can get down to
> seeing the basic differences between just a math
> theory, and those theories that have a physical base.
> And then we can see how SR (and GR) is one of these
> pure math theories, and how LET is a physical based
> theory. And then we would know how to judge between
> these two theories!
It's clear that you're not getting what I'm saying to you, and I can't
make it any clearer. Let's call it a day.
RP
jem wrote:
By imaginative processes for sure, as you said, since they do not exist
in the theory itself. They may well have been premises, but the theory
itself contradicts those premises. What it amounts to is that wrt any
given frame it can regard itself as at rest (which roughly corresponds
to absolute), and the ether in that frame is equivalent to the
coordinate space of the observer. IOW, the definition of these terms by
the theory do not precicely match the definitions that you are
attributing to them. The theory was able to be derived because these
terms were not defined as absolute, but rather as frame dependent in
general, and absolute wrt a given FoR. There is a difference in the
meanings of the two occurrences of *absolute* in this argument.
O'Barr is taking the LET definition, the one that applies within any
given FoR to the ether, and applying incorrectly to the ether in
general. There is no preferred FoR in LET.
Richard Perry
Gerald L. O'Barr
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>> . . .
<deletes by O'Barr>
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Both an absolute reference frame and ether exist in
>LET, and a 4-D spacetime continuum exists in SR.
>These things exist due to the imaginative processes
>of people, but it doesn't make sense to even
>speculate about the existence of things in Nature,
>since such existence is unverifiable - all that can
>be verified are our interactions with Nature (i.e.
>the measurements made by our instruments).
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
And this is a lie! It is possible, and it is
important, that we know exactly what nature is, and
what it is not. This is called progress.
Now let me tell you the origin of this lie. This
lie did not and does not exist at NASA. This lie is
not used in the medical area. This lie is not used
in the Industrial base of our country. All those who
work at making things, in inventing things, in
success, know exactly to what degree we know things,
and to what degree we do not know things. This is
what makes a scientist a scientist.
This lie mainly comes from professors who have
tenure and who teach, and teach theories that are
only math theories. And they worship these math
theories. Since all that a math theory can do is
predict math measurements, then of course their
theories are weak and second rate theories, unless
they can convince everyone that just math
measurements are all that is necessary or possible
for all theories. So you accept a complete lie, just
so your theories that you worship can be accepted.
You are one sick person to buy all this junk just so
you can worship math theories!
You said that all we can know is what we measure.
But if we were to really use your type of thinking,
then all measurements come from using tools, and
tools are part of reality, and since you yourself say
that we can not and will never know reality, then we
will never know our tools, and thus we will never
know what a measurement really is! And so your lie
is obvious! If you are really going to accept
measurements as being real, then you have lied to us
all! And you are sick!
How dare you say that we do not know that there
are atoms and molecules! Of course we obviously do
not yet know everything yet; and yes, it just might
be that there is something a little bit wrong in
anything we presently know. But is it possible to
put odds, scientific odds, on any of this? And where
are these odds in there not being atoms? Every
scientist has the right and the duty to set out the
odds to what should be thought, if they can be
measured, and without such odds, it is unscientific
to say that we do not know if atoms exist! It is
stupid and sick to infer such things, without giving
the scientific odds upon which it is based!
Let me repeat what you have just said:
You, jem, said:
>Both an absolute reference frame and ether exist in
>LET, and a 4-D spacetime continuum exists in SR.
O'Barr comments:
Obviously they exist, as a theory, in their own
theory. Did you mean to say something important
here? But there is only one reality, and the real
question is not what exists as a theory in a theory,
but what really exists! And since 4-D is something
that is physically impossible, then of course 4-D
does not and cannot really exist! It is only a math
aid within its own theory. It is a math aid that
works, but it has nothing at all to do with actual
reality!
jem said:
>These things exist due to the imaginative processes
>of people,
O'Barr comments:
All it takes is imagination? This is true for SR.
In terms of LET, it took a very deep understanding of
electrical forces, and that rulers were made up of
particles held together by such forces, and these
forces become modified with velocity. And thus the
length of rulers, if they followed the known changes
in diameters of equal potential spheres, would
contract in the direction of their motions. And lo
and behold, it was the exact length contraction
required. All of this was not imagination, but
science. And it required the understanding of light
clocks, and how their rates would change with motion,
and lo and behold, this change in rate was exactly
what was necessary. There was, in fact, no
imagination at all required in LET! It was
'scienced' by Lorentz, step by step by step.
jem said:
> . . . but it doesn't make sense to even
>speculate about the existence of things in Nature,
>since such existence is unverifiable - all that can
>be verified are our interactions with Nature (i.e.
>the measurements made by our instruments).
O'Barr comments:
And this was well answered above! Man does have
an intellect. And by the power of this intellect, we
will succeed!
<deletes by O'Barr>
>> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>> . . . SR predicts exactly the same measurements
>>>that LET does.
O'Barr wrote:
>> And what beautiful thoughts! Yes, SR predicts
>> exactly the same measurements. But all of LET
>> measurements are always in simple 3-D space and
>> simple 1-D time, with never any need for any real
>> breaks in symmetry, or any real jumps in time.
>> While SR has to live with all these things.
>> It is so good to hear you say these things.
>> . . . the day will come when
>> LET will be seen to be superior to SR.
jem said:
>Your behind the times; that vertict's already been
>returned, and the SR approach has been deemed
>superior.
O'Barr comments:
And I am so glad that you used correct words to
say this. Note everyone: jem did not say that SR was
scientifically shown to be superior. He cannot
present one test data point, one test result, one
example, where SR is superior. All he can say, and
all that anyone can say, is that it was just deemed
to be superior. It was just a personal choice, and
there was nothing scientific about it at all! And we
now know that it was the wrong personal choice! SR
is not good science. It assumes things that are
physically impossible. It results in things
occurring that are physically impossible, like breaks
in symmetry, and back in time like jumps! LET has
none of these problems, it is physically perfect, as
well as math perfect, and it is superior!
jem said:
>Frankly, the reason you've given for preferring LET
>(physical explanation vs. only math) is frivolous.
>All models use math in exactly the same way (i.e. to
>logically infer measurements), and no models are
>able to explain the functioning of Nature (all that
>can be explained is the functioning of the models).
O'Barr comments:
And such lies will not stand. The study of
science is nature, not just the study of models.
Anyone could study models and never look at nature.
So it is a lie to say that only the models are being
studied, and the understanding of models is all that
is being done. These are sick thoughts, and belie
the real goal that is before us.
Certainly, it is no simple thing to understand
reality. That is why a smart scientist seeks to get
confirmation. He seeks for an over-whelming number
of independent confirmations, correlations, inter-
related dependencies, that together provide a degree
of confidence that we really know what we think we
know, and such positions are often able to be
achieved and used. This is science! And it is not
the philosophy trying to be used by SR experts to
shore up their weak and second rate math theories
that cannot provide any confidence at all.
LET is superior to SR because it has a physical
base, that adds to the number of confirmations of the
theory, that can give scientists stronger reasons to
accept it, and to build on it to reach further into
the unknown.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>
<deletes by O'Barr - everywhere>
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> . . . . in LET, in the one and only
>> frame in which the ether is at relative rest, this
>> is the only frame in which what is measured is
>> always what reality really is, and thus, there are
>> theoretically never any physical problems in this
>> theory. And thus, there is absolutely zero reason
>> or need for a 4-D! QED!
>> To repeat this again: In LET, real changes in
>> lengths of rulers and real changes in rates of
>> clocks, along with man made changes in sync, allow
>> for measurements of reality to be different than
>> what actual reality might be, frame by frame.
>> And thus
>> LET explains SR, as to why we measure what is
>> measured. But within LET, true reality is
>> correctly measured within the special frame in
>> which there are no changes in our rulers and
>> clocks. Thus, any differences between frames are
>> directly explained in LET (both for itself and for
>> SR), and in no way is a 4-D spacetime continuum
>> required to make this explanation!
>> . . . it is clear that LET is the stronger theory.
>> It has no breaks in symmetry, no jumps in time,
>> and it allows the potential for cause and effects
>> in all it proposes. LET provides to us
>> explanations both for itself
>> and for SR, and thus it is, in all ways,
>> the superior approach! LET takes place in the
>> simplest of 3-D space, with the simplest of
>> Newtonian like kinetics, the simplest of physical
>> explanations,
>> the simplest of logic and human understanding. In
>> all ways, it just cannot be beat! And for all
>> these
>> reasons, it is has to be accepted as the superior
>> theory. Besides, GR needs an ether! QM needs an
>> ether. It has to happen sooner or later!
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You have no idea what LET is or says.
O'Barr comments:
When you have a math theory like SR, where you
imagine that you have things that are physically
impossible, like a 4-D spacetime continuum is assumed
to exist, then anyone can say things like you have
just said. It is humanly impossible to physically
understand SR, and so you can say what you say and
get away with it.
But LET is a physical theory. It is able to be
understood by almost all human beings. And although
you might be correct that I do not understand it, it
is against the odds that you are right, since LET is
not like SR, and can be understood.
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> . . . It's the same
>fucking theory. Now as a rule in general, i.e. *as
>an absolute rule* if a thing isn't absolute (which
>translates as *invariant*), then it isn't real, ok?
>Even in LET the durations and the 3D distances
>aren't absolute. Reality is undeniably 4D. There is
>no preferred frame in LET. LET = Special Relativity.
O'Barr comments:
I think you have to restate some of this. There
are many variables in reality, and they do not have
to a constant in order to be real. Even mass appears
to be a variable under some conditions, and yet mass
is one of the most real things that exist. And LET
absolutely has, in theory, an absolute reference
frame in which all rulers and clocks are at one
unique length and rate, and upon which all changes
are based and controlled.
The fact that a 4-D math is capable of handling a
predictive role, has almost nothing to do with it
being representative of anything real. I think there
has occurred a disconnect between your words and what
they mean.
But I do appreciate your quickness to say that LET
= SR. This is absolutely correct! These are
absolutely the same theory! SR is the correct math
for our reality, and LET is the correct physics that
goes with the correct math! So you can use your 4-D
math just as much as you want! It works! But LET
shows us that it is not part of our physical reality.
LET explains that 4-D is just a math aid.
Daniel Weston
description is not the thing described.
Bilge still doesn't understand this. He is so narrow minded concerning
math, that he has anthropomorphized math.
shuba
> The map is not the territory. Math is metaphor. The
> description is not the thing described.
Other than highlighting the fact that you are not interested in
learning how to interpret a map or understand a description,
what's your point?
---Tim Shuba---
RP
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
And again I say that you have some misconceptions about what LET says.
Nor is mass fundamental.
If you believe that there is an absolute frame, then maybe you can
pinpoint it for us? Which inertial frame is it?
Richard Perry
Gerald L. O'Barr
>> . . .
<deletes by O'Barr everywhere>
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
X>>>> . . . As far as reality goes, as far
X>>>> as modern-day testing goes, there is no such
X>>>> thing as a 4-D detector! All that anyone can
X>>>> do is to either measure space (a simple 3-D
X>>>> function) or to measure time. There are no
X>>>> other choices!
X>>>> And guess what! According to LET, these are
X>>>> also the only choices that exist! And these
X>>>> will always be the
X>>>> only choices that will exist! SR is a sick
X>>>> and a terrible wrong way to look at things, it
X>>>> just is not what is seen or experienced.
X>> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote: Your
X>>> reaction isn't surprising (since you've made
X>>>it quite clear in this thread that you don't
X>>>understand the role of models in Physics), but
X>>>Relativity's use of spacetime is simply one way
X>>>describing the relationship between the space and
X>>>of time measurements of relatively moving
X>>>observers.
O'Barr wrote:
X>> Well, this is refreshing. As long as you accept
X>> SR as just being a math way of doing physics, you
X>> are at least being honest. What I cannot stand
X>> is this feeling
X>> given on this net (and in almost all references)
X>> that not only is this one way of doing
X>> it, but that SR proves there is no absolute
X>> reference frame, and therefore there is no ether,
X>> and there is a real 4-D spacetime continuum!
X>>
X>> Both an absolute reference frame and ether exist
X>> in LET . . . .
Richard Perry wrote:
> By imaginative processes for sure, as you said,
> since they do not exist in the theory itself.
O'Barr comments:
I thought that I said that an absolute reference
frame, by theory, does exist in LET. Maybe you want
to say that in the end, no practical use can be made
of this special frame, but everyone must agree that
it must be there in order for the theory to work.
Richard Perry wrote:
>They may well have been premises, but the theory
>itself contradicts those premises.
O'Barr comments:
The projection of there being an absolute
reference frame, the frame that is at relative rest
with respect to the ether, the frame in which the
true length of rulers and the true rates of clocks
exists, and the only frame that has an absolute sync,
yes, all this was part of the premises of this
theory. Therefore, in the theory, all these premises
must be there, or the theory would not work. And
everything that is done in this theory is compatible
with these premises. There is nothing that
contradicts these premises. Please explain yourself!
Richard Perry wrote:
>What it amounts to is that wrt any given frame it
>can regard itself as at rest (which roughly
>corresponds to absolute), and the ether in that
>frame is equivalent to the coordinate space of the
>observer.
O'Barr comments:
Within LET, one has to keep in mind the following:
Reality is independent of all measurements. The only
frame in which true reality is correctly measured is
in the absolute frame, the frame which is at relative
rest with respect to the ether. This is the only
frame in which rulers have a correct length, and
clocks have a correct rate, and which an absolutely
correct sync can be obtained.
Measurements in general, that is, in all the other
frames, have clocks and rulers that are not perfect,
and syncs that are not perfect, and so what they
measure is not correct. The nature of all these
changes are such that the measurements made in all
these other frames appear to give absolute results.
And thus you can say what you say above, but it makes
no sense for you to say it, unless you just want to
try to stay with SR.
You are a fool to try to stay with SR. The
correct way to say it is not difficult. All you have
to say is that the measurements appear to show the
frame to be at rest. This is all that is going on.
We all know that the real facts must be, in general,
very different! Thank you for being understanding of
all these simple things!
Richard Perry wrote:
>IOW, the definition of these terms by the theory do
>not precicely match the definitions that you are
>attributing to them. The theory was able to be
>derived because these terms were not defined as
>absolute, but rather as frame dependent in general,
>and absolute wrt a given FoR. There is a difference
>in the meanings of the two occurrences of *absolute*
>in this argument.
>
>O'Barr is taking the LET definition, the one that
>applies within any given FoR to the ether, and
>applying incorrectly to the ether in general. There
>is no preferred FoR in LET.
O'Barr comments:
Well, thank you for all your help. Most of what
you said is correct! I wish it were all correct.
Yes, I am using LET definitions, because they are
the correct definitions! And in the correct LET
theory, there is a preferred frame, in theory, which
is required in order for the theory to work.
Therefore, unless you add more explanations to your
thoughts, that you want to address only what can be
measured, etc., then your statement that there is no
preferred frame in LET is simply wrong.
Now we do all live in the same reality, and in SR,
we know that there is no absolute frame that we can
detect. And thus, if LET is correct, and it is, then
in LET, we also find ourselves unable to make a
direct contact with this frame. But the theory fully
and completely explains all this. This is then not a
weakness of the theory, but it actually establishes
the theory as being correct.
Thanks for your comments.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
I know that you know these things better than me,
but I am catching up with you!
Gerald L. O'Barr
<deletes by O'Barr>
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And again I say that you have some misconceptions
>about what LET says.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
It is easy to see that you have lost.
Yes, I am sure, somewhere, I have at least one
misconception. It is just too bad that you can not
name it, you cannot list it, you cannot discuss it!
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nor is mass fundamental.
O'Barr comments:
Mass is fundamental in my at theory. Maybe that
is why it is the only successful theory?
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If you believe that there is an absolute frame, then
>maybe you can pinpoint it for us? Which inertial
>frame is it?
O'Barr comments:
Yes, as said above, it is easy to tell you have
lost. Anyone who has to ask such a question has
reached the end of their abilities to ask any good
questions.
Look, Richard Perry, you are one of the good guys.
You know that SR and LET are the same theory. And
you and jem could have saved me seven years of pain
on this net, if you had come to my defense back in
1997. Where were you in 1997? So I am not pleased
to argue against you. You know these answers better
than I do.
Where is our absolute reference? Where is the
ether? Well, find for me any object that has a
constant natural free space velocity different than c
(faster - prefer infinite - or slower - prefer zero,
but any would do), and we could find this frame. Or
take a rotating bar (rotating upon its axis of
symmetry that lies along its length), and use the two
ends of this rotating bar as two spacially separated
clocks, and allow their sync to be the natural sync
as formed by the bar in an unstressed state, and we
can find this frame.
Or use your thinking to understand LET, and see
how this frame has to physically exist to account for
all that is seen. Or study GR, or QM, or the at
theory. In all cases, the need for a background is
absolute and sure.
But showing you this frame has nothing to do with
knowing that it is there. Who can show us the center
of a black hole? I do not necessarily believe in
black holes, but I do not say that we cannot believe
in black holes because we cannot see them, or we
cannot see their centers. You cannot demand of a
theory what is not allowed or is not possible in the
theory itself. To do this is itself unscientific.
And I know that you can do better than this!
Thanks for reading.
Perspicacious
> predictive role, has almost nothing to do with it
> being representative of anything real.
Does Euclidean geometry reasonably model real space?
To the farthest reaches of human understanding, time
is an irreducible concept. Space, time, and motion,
are interconnected concepts. Space has a geometric
structure. There is no reason to doubt that space
and time are interrelated as components of an all-
embracing geometric structure.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>> The fact that a 4-D math is capable of handling a
>> predictive role, has almost nothing to do with it
>> being representative of anything real.
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Does Euclidean geometry reasonably model real space?
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
In free space, set up the most exact and perfect
measurement system that can be done. (This would be
a perfect SR system of a grid of rulers and clocks,
with the clocks set in perfect sync for the frame in
which the clocks are located!) An exact measurement
of the real space in this grid will be found to be a
perfect linear 3-D space, uniform and symmetrical in
all directions and locations! Do you believe what is
measured is what it really is? If so, then Euclidean
geometry reasonably models real space! QED!
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>To the farthest reaches of human understanding, time
>is an irreducible concept. Space, time, and motion,
>are interconnected concepts. Space has a geometric
>structure. There is no reason to doubt that space
>and time are interrelated as components of an all-
>embracing geometric structure.
O'Barr comments:
Well, belief and doubt can be almost anything.
I see that you did not give even one direct
example or measurement to show any of what you have
just said. Is there a reason why you did not show
it? I gave you a specific way to determine if space
was 3-D. Why did you not show me a specific way to
show that it was 4-D?
Let me explain to you what you are up against!
LET is mathematically the exact same math theory as
SR, and it is thus able to account for all
measurements of SR to be nothing more than simple 3-D
space and simple 1-D time. Thus, due to this strange
but true relationship that exists between SR and LET,
SR is scientifically powerless to ever prove that
there is a 4-D reality! It just cannot happen as
long as LET exists. And LET will exist for just as
long as SR will ever exist. And so, SR is in a
pickle! SR is in a very sad state. And there is
nothing any SR expert can do about this! SR is, in
fact, dead! It is no longer an acceptable approach!
It cannot scientifically shake off LET, and LET,
being a physical theory, is now stronger than SR in
all possible ways!
RP
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> In <19idnerAqYm...@centurytel.net>
> Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>
>
> <deletes by O'Barr>
>
> Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>And again I say that you have some misconceptions
>>about what LET says.
>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
> It is easy to see that you have lost.
> Yes, I am sure, somewhere, I have at least one
> misconception. It is just too bad that you can not
> name it, you cannot list it, you cannot discuss it!
Ahem, I did name it. Very specifically "There is no preferred frame in
LET". I was under the same spell not too long ago, but Tom Roberts
cleared it up promptly for me. The math says very clearly that there is
no preferred frame, it simply doesn't matter what Lorentz claimed that
it said any more than it matters that you claim the same thing.
Invariance as a rule (often referred to in this context as *symmetry*)
is what breaks Lorentz claim. IOW, if you accept that there is an ether
that magically hides its own existence, then you must abandon symmetry
in order to maintain that view. You must also abandon sound logic that
dictates that wild ass guesses aren't scientific. If it isn't testable
then it isn't science, it's philosophy. Symmetry OTOH is testable, and
it has passed every test (in this domain).
Richard Perry
Perspicacious
> I see that you did not give even one direct
> example or measurement to show any of what you have
> just said. Is there a reason why you did not show
> it? I gave you a specific way to determine if space
> was 3-D. Why did you not show me a specific way to
> show that it was 4-D?
Every mathematical group determines a geometry.
Mathematicians study geometries that have only
a finite number of points and lines. There are
infinitely many geometries that are so abstract
that they can't be visualized at all. You're just
hung up on the word geometry. It's obvious that
the Lorentz transformations form a mathematical
group. That group, then, defines a geometry.
Therefore, if our universe obeys the Lorentz
transformation, then space and time together
has a united 4-dimensional geometric structure.
It's just a matter of how the word geometry is
defined.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
jem
???
IOW, the definition of these terms by
> the theory do not precicely match the definitions that you are
> attributing to them.
I'm glad you put it IOW, because I sure wouldn't have gotten that from
the words which preceeded. Actually I didn't attribute any definitions
to the terms; I just assumed they had their usual meanings.
The theory was able to be derived because these
> terms were not defined as absolute, but rather as frame dependent in
> general, and absolute wrt a given FoR. There is a difference in the
> meanings of the two occurrences of *absolute* in this argument.
???
> O'Barr is taking the LET definition, the one that applies within any
> given FoR to the ether, and applying incorrectly to the ether in
> general.
If you think O'Barr is doing something he shouldn't be doing, don't you
think you should point it out to him, rather than to me.
> There is no preferred FoR in LET.
AFAIK "preferred FoR" usually means "FoR with unique properties", in
which case LET clearly has one, but if you mean something else by the
term, and the ether frame doesn't qualify, so what?
Bilge
>Bilge wrote:
>> Perspicacious:
>> > "We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz
>> > transformation by invoking the principle of relativity
>> > alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of
>> > the existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a
>> > velocity is shown to be a necessary consequence of the
>> > first postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite
>> > is borne out by experiment."
>>
>> No one is arguing that it can't. You can go back over my
>> posts as far as you like and see that Ive pointed that out.
>> It's your own idea of how to do that which is being criticized.
>
>The most frequently repeated criticisms have been answered.
>It is a matter of record in the google archives that the rebuttal
>is so perfectly irrefutable that it has turned one seemingly
>knowledgeable physicist into an ugly, uncontrollably vicious,
>permanently irrational troll. It's all documented here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/96abd3c572a0082b
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8006baf1a1b23133
Which proves you're an idiot. Thanks for referencing the proof.
Gerald L. O'Barr
<deletes by O'Barr>
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It is easy to see that you have lost.
>> Yes, I am sure, somewhere, I have at least one
>>misconception. It is just too bad that you can not
>>name it, you cannot list it, you cannot discuss it!
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ahem, I did name it. Very specifically "There is no
>preferred frame in LET". I was under the same spell
>not too long ago, but Tom Roberts cleared it up
>promptly for me. The math says very clearly that
>there is no preferred frame, it simply doesn't
>matter what Lorentz claimed that it said any more
>than it matters that you claim the same thing.
>Invariance as a rule (often referred to in this
>context as *symmetry*) is what breaks Lorentz claim.
>IOW, if you accept that there is an ether that
>magically hides its own existence, then you must
>abandon symmetry in order to maintain that view. You
>must also abandon sound logic that dictates that
>wild ass guesses aren't scientific. If it isn't
>testable then it isn't science, it's philosophy.
>Symmetry OTOH is testable, and it has passed every
>test (in this domain).
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
When do we stop laughing? Let us see what you
have said: You have said that this is not Lorentz's
theory, this is Tom's theory. You have said that if
the math is only two lines long, then the theory is
only two lines long. You have said things that are
funny, and just cannot be believed by anyone.
The fact that there is a physical ether, and it is
the physical ether that causes the lengths or rulers
to change, and the physical ether that results in the
rates of clocks to change, means nothing to you. As
soon as you have the math, then you say everything
else is of no value. In fact, you say they don't
even exist. They do not even exist, even though they
are the cause of things being the way they are. Do
you not see something funny in all this! You are so
set in doing away with physical things, and in only
considering the math, that you let yourself be crazy,
and dumb, and ignorant, just so you can make yourself
believe in SR math. It is a shame!
Let me give you an example of what you are doing:
Let us say before the kinetic theory of gases was
presented, there was a man who had guessed that PV =
nRT. This guess was just math, but it was correct
math. Now after someone took the kinetic theory of
gases, and derived PV = nRT, you come along and say,
hey, we already have PV = nRT, so all these
calculations about atoms bouncing around is
unnecessary. We must get rid of all these things,
and take the math exactly as we had it.
Don't you see that LET provides to us the physical
understanding of why the math works? Surely, you
must know that to ignore the ether brings you back to
magic, to impossible concepts that have no logic and
no explanations. You cannot be that dumb!
You said that the ether 'magically hides its own
existence....' What a lie! There is no magic about
it. You are being so dumb. There is nothing wrong
with having something that cannot be seen, such as a
black hole, as long as there are reasons for it being
that way. Do you really mean to say what you say?
You are acting like a child!
And LET tells us exactly what symmetry exists, and
what does not. It is important to know exactly what
symmetry is real, and what symmetry is not real, and
can be broken! Where did you get lost?
Please restate what you dare! I will not accept
what you have so far said! It is unscientific.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail!
Gerald L. O'Barr
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I see that you did not give even one direct
>> example or measurement to show any of what you
>> have just said. Is there a reason why you did not
>> show it? I gave you a specific way to determine
>> if space was 3-D. Why did you not show me a
>> specific way to show that it was 4-D?
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Every mathematical group determines a geometry.
>Mathematicians study geometries that have only
>a finite number of points and lines. There are
>infinitely many geometries that are so abstract
>that they can't be visualized at all. You're just
>hung up on the word geometry. It's obvious that
>the Lorentz transformations form a mathematical
>group. That group, then, defines a geometry.
>Therefore, if our universe obeys the Lorentz
>transformation, then space and time together
>has a united 4-dimensional geometric structure.
>It's just a matter of how the word geometry is
>defined.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
I am so glad that you understand so many things.
So this will be easy. No matter how it is that any
math group might define a geometry, there are things
that must be done before any math model is able to be
said to actually be the way reality might be. To
prove that reality itself is 4-D, is not an easy
thing to accomplish. And you have not mentioned one
way at all in order to do this.
Just because a geometry works in the math being
used, or just because a geometry is in the books,
does not at all mean that reality is based upon that
geometry. And in terms of SR and LET, there are two
different geometries that can accomplish the exact
same job. And until you can present something that
can really tell them apart, you have no right to take
the physically impossible geometry, and say that it
is the one that represent reality. This is unsound
science, unacceptable thinking, with total lack of
logic. And you need to repent!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
RP
RP wrote:
There is more to it than faith Gerald. A em medium would require some
means of interaction between its parts. At what speed do you propose
that its parts interact with each other? Better make it c, eh? Now what
is it do you suppose, in turn, that mediates the interaction between its
parts? Yet another medium? By reductio to an argument of ad infinitum,
there is no medium. You have two choices:
1) Direct particle (fermion) interaction
2) Exchange particles (bosons)
I've just outlined the impossibility of #2 in sci.physics, that leaves
#1 as the only possibility.
As for math being the reality, no, it's a map of reality. But saying
"there is an ether" is neither math nor map, just a philosophy, and a
bad one at that. You cannot define it, you can't even describe it in
terms that are consistent with the idea of *thing*.
Richard Perry
Richard Perry
Perspicacious
> model is able to be said to actually be the way
> reality might be.
Only God can comment ultimately on the exact nature of
reality. A mathematician however can say definitively
that if the Lorentz transformation group characterizes
our universe, then our universe is 4-dimensional.
> To prove that reality itself is 4-D, is not an easy
> thing to accomplish. And you have not mentioned
> one way at all in order to do this.
I have no burden to prove that reality is 4-dimensional.
I think the onus is on you to prove that it isn't.
> there are two different geometries that can accomplish
> the exact same job.
No, I think that the Lorentz transformation determines
a unique geometry. You're just on a campaign to exalt
your own non-geometric properties above SR's non-
geometric properties.
> And until you can present something that can really
> tell them apart,
The differences are obvious. There is just no geometric
difference.
> you have no right to take the physically impossible
> geometry,
There is only one geometry determined by the Lorentz
transformation.
Daniel Weston
name given to a math procedure involving the use of a manifold. The
curvature of spacetime is not of realty except as math is part of
reality as it exists in the brain of man. The same for the 4th d. Math
is metaphor. Keplar's laws and its attendant math, do not make the
planets move the way that they do. Gravity is not caused by the
curvature of space time. You can take all the curvature of spacetime in
the universe and it would move 1 atom an angstrom unit. The map is not
the territory.
The above statements are not an attack on relativity at all, but only an
attack upon some posters here that misrepresent what relativity is.
Bilge
>name given to a math procedure involving the use of a manifold. The
>curvature of spacetime is not of realty except as math is part of
>reality as it exists in the brain of man. The same for the 4th d. Math
>is metaphor. Keplar's laws and its attendant math, do not make the
>planets move the way that they do. Gravity is not caused by the
>curvature of space time.
Why's that dan? Could you explain in detail why you think gravity
isn't due to spacetime curvature? Could you explain why gravity only
appears to be due to spacetime curvature and how you deduced that
it isn't?
>You can take all the curvature of spacetime in the universe and
>it would move 1 atom an angstrom unit.
Do you have a calculation showing that?
>The map is not the territory.
The cliche isn't the theory.
>The above statements are not an attack on relativity at all, but only an
>attack upon some posters here that misrepresent what relativity is.
Then while youre at it, could you show me howto solve the
dirac equation without misrepresenting relativity?
Gerald L. O'Barr
>> . . .
<deletes by O'Barr>
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There is more to it than faith Gerald.
O'Barr comments:
You are certainly correct on this! And I want to
thank you and the others who are presently responding
to me. None of you seem to get too excited when I
show a little emotion. And this is good. And you
really do seem to want to explain, rather than just
confuse the issue, as many on this net have done in
the past. So the thanks are well deserved.
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A em medium would require some means of interaction
>between its parts.
O'Barr comments:
Any person who believes in a physical reality
assumes that there is no such thing as an
instantaneous transfer of action, and that some means
must exist to allow action at one point to affect
action at some distant point. Only those who hold to
or use just math theories allow anything else.
RP wrote:
>At what speed do you propose that its parts interact
>with each other? Better make it c, eh?
O'Barr comments:
Well, this is a good question. In the ether, as
it ends up being in the at theory, photons are not
properties of 'waves' in the ether. The ether, in
fact, cannot sustain any 'waves' at all, as we know
waves in air or oceans, etc. (If a particle loses
mass, or oscillates in mass, there is an effective
'wave of matter' that leaves this site, but it
disperses fairly rapidly.) The ether is like a gas,
with particles that range in velocity from zero to
near infinity, and these particles have no space
reaching forces between them. They are inert to each
other, except by direct collision contact.
The ether does determine the speed of photons that
move in it, but it is a complicated function that
includes a translational effect where momentum is
able to be unidirectionally obtained out of the
ether, versus a drag function. This ends up being c
in free space. The fact that photons themselves have
a motion that looks like a wave is a stability
problem. Stability is achievable either by a linear
or circular 'snake' motion, just as long as there are
some side-way motions to introduce one additional
force.
Let me tell you some things about these
translations. These translating particles like to go
in circles. They can spin, like an electron spin,
they like orbits, like electrons orbit, even in
localized areas (ie, to orbit it does not have to go
all the way around the object.) But to go in a
perfectly straight line is not easy: The center of
the drag effect is collinear with the center of the
translation forces, but the drag can be in front of
pushing. It does not like this, as anyone should be
able to see. So things are really interesting. Now
I am not saying that all things are light. But light
is one of the most crazy things that anyone can
imagine!
Richard Perry (RP) wrote:
>Now what is it do you suppose, in turn, that
>mediates the interaction between its parts? Yet
>another medium? By reductio to an argument of ad
>infinitum, there is no medium. You have two choices:
> . . . .
O'Barr comments:
In the at theory, there are no mediums below the
ether field. End of problem! No other choices are
necessary or required!
Richard Perry (RP) wrote:
>As for math being the reality, no, it's a map of
>reality.
O'Barr comments:
Thanks for the agreement. And like all maps, math
has its limitations. Like all maps, math is not
perfect in everything, but it is usually adequate if
one is careful to keep separate the differences
between actual reality from just the map used to
describe it.
Richard Perry (RP) wrote:
>But saying "there is an ether" is neither math nor
>map, just a philosophy, and a bad one at that. You
>cannot define it, you can't even describe it in
>terms that are consistent with the idea of *thing*.
O'Barr comments:
The at theory gives a perfect scientific
description of the ether, which results in an
explanation as to why it appears to not be there, but
is there to accomplish all space forces that are
observed. It is capable of being modeled on the
computer. It uses particles of mass, and includes
collisions that result in spalls.
Spalls result in collisions that do not have to
show any direct effect (there are no bounces), yet
allows enough effect to transfer matter, energy, and
momentum exactly as required, no more, no less.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> there are things that must be done before any math
>> model is able to be said to actually be the way
>> reality might be.
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Only God can comment ultimately on the exact nature
>of reality. A mathematician however can say
>definitively that if the Lorentz transformation
>group characterizes our universe, then our universe
>is 4-dimensional.
O'Barr comments:
Yes, a mathematician can say a lot of things! But
what they say, and what they really mean, can be two
very different things.
Certainly anyone can say if reality is 4-D, then
reality is 4-D! But no one can say that the simple
fact that a 4-D math is able to describe our reality,
that that then makes reality to be 4-D. Such
thinking is stupid! A 4-D math can also be used to
describe a 1-D problem! So what?
The point is, today, we can use LET, and with
simple 3-D, we are able to describe everything that
is done with your 4-D. And thus, you can say what
you say, but you cannot say it scientifically. And
you better know this! You are making yourself a fool
if you are not willing to understand such simple
things! LET really works, and it really works in a
simple 3-D way. And there is no escape for any of
you mathematicians to say that anyone has to use 4-D
to get the correct answers! That is a lie! And it
is going to end!
O'Barr wrote:
>> To prove that reality itself is 4-D, is not an
>> easy thing to accomplish. And you have not
>> mentioned one way at all in order to do this.
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have no burden to prove that reality is 4-
>dimensional. I think the onus is on you to prove
>that it isn't.
O'Barr comments:
For any sane person (like any SR expert) to claim
that our reality is actually something that is
physically impossible (like being 4-D), then yes, you
do have an obligation to prove it! And especially
when you have a valid theory (LET) that does
everything your impossible 4-D is able to do, but
does it simpler, in just simple 3-D, you become even
more obligated to do this! But you cannot, and you
do not do such things, because such things are
impossible. And you are a liar if you are not
willing to admit to all this! It is right now before
us all, as clear as a bell. And you better not run
away from it, saying you have no responsibilities for
saying that our reality is actually 4-D!
O'Barr wrote:
> there are two different geometries that can
> accomplish the exact same job.
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No, I think that the Lorentz transformation
>determines a unique geometry. You're just on a
>campaign to exalt your own non-geometric properties
>above SR's non-geometric properties.
O'Barr comments:
It has nothing at all to do with me! I am the
least on this net. What the problem is, you do not
have a unique geometry! Both SR and LET both
accomplishes the identical predictions, producing the
identical results! And so SR is not unique, and its
4-D geometry is not unique, in terms of describing
our reality. And for this you will hang! LET ends
up being superior, because it is simpler, it is
physical, and it provides a stronger and a more
reasonable explanation for our reality! And there
are about 10 additional reasons that can be added at
this point, if you have read any of my articles!
O'Barr wrote:
>> And until you can present something that can
>> really tell them apart, . . .
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The differences are obvious. There is just no
>geometric difference.
O'Barr comments:
Say what you will, but there is a physical
difference in saying that there is no absolute
reference and there is a 4-D spacetime continuum;
than saying that there is an ether frame and that it
is only a simple 3-D reality. If to you, if in your
mind, these are all the same things, then I forgive
you. You are insane and should not be held to be a
responsible person!
O'Barr wrote:
>> you have no right to take the physically
>> impossible geometry,
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There is only one geometry determined by the Lorentz
>transformation.
O'Barr comments:
Talking about math is one thing. But talking
about reality is another. It might be true, in the
math sense, that some math might require a particular
geometry. But this is not the question at hand. We
are talking about reality. And the reality that we
see and that we measure is able to be seen to be a
simple 3-D reality. It does not matter if you have
found a way to also express it in a 4-D math form.
You can also express it in a 5-D math form. It just
does not matter! What matters is this, you can
express it in simple 3-D math. And thus, you cannot,
nor will you ever be able to prove that it has to be
in 4-D as long as LET 3-D works! And the logic is,
we should pick the simplest approach, as long as it
does work.
Your SR is dead! It is not correct science. It
is not the approach that is logical. It includes
breaks in symmetry that is not necessary and not
physically allowed. It is poor science!
shuba
> One of my points is that the curvature of spacetime is the
> name given to a math procedure involving the use of a manifold. The
> curvature of spacetime is not of realty except as math is part of
> reality as it exists in the brain of man. The same for the 4th d. Math
> is metaphor. Keplar's laws and its attendant math, do not make the
> planets move the way that they do. Gravity is not caused by the
> curvature of space time. You can take all the curvature of spacetime in
> the universe and it would move 1 atom an angstrom unit. The map is not
> the territory.
>
> The above statements are not an attack on relativity at all
Of course not. They are the ramblings of a kook who has zero
appreciation for mathematics. Rather than obsessing about what
reality exists inside or outside of a human brain, a better idea
would be to learn what it means to assert, for instance, that the
surface of the earth is curved. It's too bad that the process of
learning about mathematics is so antithetical to your approach,
because physics without mathematics is vacuous musing.
---Tim Shuba---
Daniel Weston
Math is conceptual, a free invention of the human mind, one of the
greatest inventions of all time. However math does not create matter,
move matter, nor bring about gravity. If you think that the curvature
of spacetime causes gravity, what is your evidence? An assertion to
that effect is not evidence. If you are going to take a stand, it is
best to take one when you have some chance of prevailing. If you wish
to anthropomorphisize math, go ahead, it is a free country. Merely
stating that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity, is committing
the Logical Error of Ipsit Dixit.
shuba
> In case you wondered, I have the highest respect for math.
I didn't wonder; as I said, you have zero appreciation for
mathematics.
> If you are going to take a stand, it is
> best to take one when you have some chance of prevailing.
Right. So you can either go back, reread my previous suggestion,
and learn something about curvature, or you can continue to post
vacuous inanity.
> If you wish
> to anthropomorphisize math
I suppose the reason you refuse to quote the people you respond
to is so that you won't look like such an obvious phony and an
incompetent. Believe me, it doesn't work.
---Tim Shuba---
Bilge
your while to try and figure out how it relates to physics.
>Math is conceptual, a free invention of the human mind, one of the
>greatest inventions of all time. However math does not create matter,
>move matter, nor bring about gravity.
That only begs the question, since what you call matter and all the
rest is also a product of your mind. Do you really think the best
definition of matter you could give comes anywhere close to the
mathematical description in physics?
>If you think that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity,
>what is your evidence?
The same evidence you have that rocks fall down and not up. An
observation coupled with a language that describes the observation.
My language just happens to be a great deal more precise than yours.
Your argument amounts to saying that the only meaningful description
of reality must be vague and imprecise.
We might really all be a computer program, but that sort of mental
masturbtion belongs on a different newsgroup.
>An assertion to that effect is not evidence.
So, where is the evidence for your assertions?
>If you are going to take a stand, it is best to take one when you
>have some chance of prevailing.
Overruled.
>If you wish to anthropomorphisize math, go ahead, it is a free country.
>Merely stating that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity, is
>committing the Logical Error of Ipsit Dixit.
You're committing the logical error of giving an opinion for
a field in which you are incompetent to practice.
Bilge
>
>> In case you wondered, I have the highest respect for math.
>
>I didn't wonder; as I said, you have zero appreciation for
>mathematics.
position (and the rest of the kooks in the mental masturbation
circle jerk):
(1) Reality: rocks fall down
(2) Creations of the mind: The same as (1) except rocks and what it
means to fall down are given precise meanings and agree with
measurements defined by some standard.
(3) Unreal ``math theories:'' The same as (2), except the theory
has been studied in enough depth to also define the meaning of
a measurement self-consistently and calculate numbers which
are accurate up to the limitations of technology.
So the general rule here seems to be that the reality associated
with a theory is inversely proportional to the precision with which
the theory describes reality. I think that our troll, Mr. I. Cant,
has a future hawking creationism and intelligent design.
Perspicacious
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
Mathematically, SR and SxR have the same number of dimensions.
Any respectable presentation of SR will also include SxR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4305#4305
Gerald L. O'Barr
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
When one works with math, there are many who have
experienced different backgrounds. In some sciences,
the word 'dimension' is often used just to refer to
the specific units associated with the variables
being used (feet, pounds, ergs, etc.) I have also
seen the word dimensions be used as if they were
speaking about all the variables involved. But most
often, the word 'dimension' is a special word
reserved where it has a fixed set of variables that
enjoy a forced relationship as can be found in the
dimensions of space.
Therefore, when comparing SR and LET, it is
obvious that they must each have and be part of the
same set of variables! I am sure we can all agree to
this! And the units associated with all these
variables might also, if we are careful, be accepted
to be the same. So if this is the limit of your
concern, then we can all agree, and go home happy.
Is this your concern: You just want us all to
know that these two theories all enjoy the same
number of variables?
*************************
But the problem is, I do not think that this is
the limit to your position or concern!
There are very specific discussions and sciences
where 'dimension' is a word used to discuss a very
specific set of relationships that are forced to
exist between a fixed number of variables due to
geometric relationships. It involves physical
meanings (at least on the level of three), and
mathematical meanings (on all levels) that include
several relationships.
First, each variable are part of the same whole.
And together they form the whole. Thus, they each
have the same nature, the same units, the same
quality. To this degree, one can replace the other,
with no differences, no additional energy flow, no
changes of any kind, etc. Thus they all have the
same units. They also have fixed relationships
between them. One concept is they must be orthogonal
to each other. If the sum of their squares is a
fixed value, then they are forced to have certain
relationships between them, and be of a limited
range, etc. A 'length' or 'distance' is preserved.
If you know the value of all of them but one, the
other can be determined, if you know the sum of their
squares, etc.
Now spatially, there are geometric reasons for all
this, but when you go above three dimensions, it is
mathematically possible to have the same general
relationships to apply even if geometry is not
involved.
What has to be understood, is that although there
are special reasons for these relationships to exist
in real space, it is possible for other reasons to
cause these same relationships to exist, and might
not have nothing at all to do with geometry. The
fact that the same math equations can be used for
different situations is not unknown, and thus the
causes or reasons for the same relationship might or
might not be present. For this reason, just because
a set of variables are seen to follow the same math
equations, does not mean that they are following
these relationships for the same reasons.
Therefore, if you want to propose that the
relationships being followed in SR proves that there
is a real 4-D spacetime continuum, and that this is a
geometric situation that consist of one whole, with
all variables being identical, etc., then we will
continue to argue. But if all you really want to do
is just to say that we have found a way to force all
these variables to be placed into a 4-D format, that
is fine. So please let me know what it is that you
are trying to say!
Thanks!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
P.S. And I am sure you did not mean to ignore any of
the other things that had been mentioned in the
previous post.
YBM
> I respect Shubert's approach to absolute frames of reference:
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
Of course since you ARE "Schubert".
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious wrote:
> >I respect Shubert's approach to absolute frames of reference:
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
> >Mathematically, SR and SxR have the same number of dimensions.
> >
> >Any respectable presentation of SR will also include SxR.
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4305#4305
>
> where 'dimension' is a word used to discuss a very
> specific set of relationships that are forced to
> exist between a fixed number of variables due to
> geometric relationships.
> And together they form the whole. Thus, they each
> have the same nature, the same units, the same
> quality. To this degree, one can replace the other,
> .... If the sum of their squares is a
> fixed value, then they are forced to have certain
> ... A 'length' or 'distance' is preserved.
> ... if you know the sum of their squares, etc.
Euclidean n-space is defined by the invariance of
a sum of squares. n can be a zillion if you like
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space ).
Henri Poincaré was the first to notice the
invariance of x^2 +y^2 +z^2 -(ct)^2 .
Please notice that we have a sum of squares
minus a sum a squares. That's obviously a
generalization of Euclidean geometry.
General relativity is built on that
generalization.
No mathematician claims that the minus sign
in x^2 +y^2 +z^2 -(ct)^2 forces time to have
the exact same nature as space. Your protests
are based on misunderstanding.
Mathematicians have every right to generalize
Euclidean geometry. Who is Gerald L. O'Barr to
protest what he doesn't even understand?
> Now spatially, there are geometric reasons for all
> this, but when you go above three dimensions, it is
> mathematically possible to have the same general
> relationships to apply even if geometry is not
> involved.
> What has to be understood, is that although there
> are special reasons for these relationships to exist
> in real space, it is possible for other reasons to
> cause these same relationships to exist, and might
> not have nothing at all to do with geometry.
Geometry is whatever geometers (mathematicians
specializing in geometry) say geometry is.
> Therefore, if you want to propose that the
> relationships being followed in SR proves that there
> is a real 4-D spacetime continuum, and that this is a
> geometric situation that consist of one whole, with
> all variables being identical, etc., then we will
> continue to argue.
To summarize, the invariance of x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2
doesn't prove that space and time are on an equal footing.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Perspicacious wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
> > In <1126627711.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > Perspicacious wrote:
> > >I respect Shubert's approach to absolute frames of reference:
> > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
> > >Mathematically, SR and SxR have the same number of dimensions.
> > >
> > >Any respectable presentation of SR will also include SxR.
> > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4305#4305
> >
O'Barr wrote:
> > Therefore, if you want to propose that the
> > relationships being followed in SR proves that there
> > is a real 4-D spacetime continuum, and that this is a
> > geometric situation that consist of one whole, with
> > all variables being identical, etc., then we will
> > continue to argue.
>
> To summarize, the invariance of x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2
> doesn't prove that space and time are on an equal footing.
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
And I agree! Thank you for saying it.
rus...@mdli.com
Sure, but would any self-respecting mathematician pose
as his own sock puppet to promote himself the way
Shubert is trying to do here? I think this has all
the makings of a new mathematical paradox -- we could
call it the Rodney Dangerfield paradox.
Daniel Weston
curvature of spacetime. Huh? I guess that the best that Bilge can do
is to insist I prove a negative. It is to bad that Bilge never took a
class in logic, or even read a good book on logic. As Androcles points
out, "prove to me that little green elephants that fly and lay eggs,
does not exist." Sometimes Bilge out does himself in stupidity.
The discipline of Epistemology does teach us however, what the optimal
answer is to a "prove the negative" demand. What you do is to take the
negative statement and rephrase it in the affirmative, then search for
supporting evidence. For example, consider the demand to "prove to me
that there is no God". You turn it into an affirmative statement that
"there is a God" and look for supporting evidence. The optimal response
to "prove to me that there is no God" is, "I can find no credible
evidence that there is a (intervening) God."
The underlying premise in logic is that the person who makes the
affirmative statement, has the burden of proof. This burden of proof
cannot be avoided by challenging that the negative be proven. Demanding
that the negative be proven, establishes the inference that the
affirmative statement has no supporting evidence.
The question before the house is, "What is the evidence that the
curvature of spacetime causes gravity." The burden of proof rests with
the person holding such a position.
Bilge; What is your evidence that the curvature of spacetime causes
gravity?"
[I agree with Bilge that the curvature of spacetime is a math
description of gravity.
Where Bilbe and I disagree is that the description does not cause the
thing described]
Androcles
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8076-432...@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
| Bilge has challenged me to prove that gravity is _not_ caused by the
| curvature of spacetime. Huh? I guess that the best that Bilge can do
| is to insist I prove a negative. It is to bad that Bilge never took a
| class in logic, or even read a good book on logic.
There you have it in a nutshell. No relativist understands logic,
whether
Einstein or Minkowski, Thorne, Taylor, Misner, Wheeler or Bilge or any
other relativist contributor to this newsgroup. Their concept of
debate is "Be reasonable. See it my way, if you can't then you must be
an idiot".
| As Androcles points
| out, "prove to me that little green elephants that fly and lay eggs,
| does not exist." Sometimes Bilge out does himself in stupidity.
Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
ISBN 0-380-44610-3
(concerning life after death)
[ If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not
accept.
I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it
is so")
I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
atheist?")
I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have
been put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who
went to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
there turns out to be nothing.]
| The discipline of Epistemology does teach us however, what the optimal
| answer is to a "prove the negative" demand. What you do is to take
the
| negative statement and rephrase it in the affirmative, then search for
| supporting evidence. For example, consider the demand to "prove to me
| that there is no God". You turn it into an affirmative statement that
| "there is a God" and look for supporting evidence. The optimal
response
| to "prove to me that there is no God" is, "I can find no credible
| evidence that there is a (intervening) God."
|
| The underlying premise in logic is that the person who makes the
| affirmative statement, has the burden of proof.
That's right.
Einstein has the burden of proving:
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Definitions are not proofs, they are not even postulates, and his
so-called
second "postulate" is false.
This burden of proof
| cannot be avoided by challenging that the negative be proven.
Demanding
| that the negative be proven, establishes the inference that the
| affirmative statement has no supporting evidence.
|
| The question before the house is, "What is the evidence that the
| curvature of spacetime causes gravity." The burden of proof rests
with
| the person holding such a position.
|
| Bilge; What is your evidence that the curvature of spacetime causes
| gravity?"
|
| [I agree with Bilge that the curvature of spacetime is a math
| description of gravity.
| Where Bilbe and I disagree is that the description does not cause the
| thing described]
It is not a description of gravity. Gravity is holding me to this chair,
I am not moving. Einstein was as stupid as Bilge is now.
Androcles.
"There are well-dressed foolish ideas, just as there are well-dressed
fools."--Nicolas Chamfort
Tom Roberts
No.
Curvature of spacetime is, however, an excellent MODEL of gravitation.
No more could be expected from a physical theory.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Daniel Weston
does not cause the thing modeled.
Androcles
| Tom Roberts: Thanks for your post. I agree with you 100%. The model
| does not cause the thing modeled.
Roberts is a cheat and an imbecile.
Roberts:
Standard and well-known derivations of the Lorentz transform are
based on the following assumptions/postulates/techniques:
1. The Principle of Relativity (Einstein's version)
Androcles:
Which one do we use?
Is it
a)
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
or
b) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
by
composition with a velocity less than that of light.
For this case we obtain V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
Roberts:
Is it [... irrelevant verbiage]
This is what Roberts was faced with and was compelled to snip in
defense of his religion, burying his head in the sand.
Now, I've used the words "a)" and "or b)" to make a legible sentence,
and the rest of the irrelevant verbiage is all Einstein's.
We can safely conclude that Roberts considers Einstein's words
to be irrelevant verbiage.
How say you now, Roberts?
I say you are a charlatan. I'm calling you that because the evidence is
quite clear.
You are a rogue, a scoundrel, a bogus physicist, as low and debase as
your predecessor, Einstein the huckster. You are deliberately
perpetrating his hoax to your own profit, under the guise of pretending
to be a physicist. You are incompetent, as are your colleagues, and
engaged in falsehood for personal gain.
You deserve prosecution for fraud. You contribute nothing to the
society in which you live, nothing to the scientific community,
nothing to humanity. You spread the lies of Einstein, hiding behind
them, and do so for your own evil purpose.
I despise you, I spit on you. You are shit.
Androcles.
Cosmik Debris
Androcles wrote:
> "Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:19819-432...@storefull-3133.bay.webtv.net...
> | Tom Roberts: Thanks for your post. I agree with you 100%. The model
> | does not cause the thing modeled.
>
> Roberts is a cheat and an imbecile.
>
Is this really necessary? I didn't learn much from this post, I do from
Tom's.
Androcles
"Cosmik Debris" <cosmik...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:1126742292.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If you wish to learn garbage, talk to smooth-talking Roberts and be
taken in.
If you wish to learn physics, read on.
From: Tom Roberts (tj...@bluebird.flw.att.com)
Subject: A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity
View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: 1996/10/22
Roberts:
Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that
the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation
given here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal
speed (c) is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis
of the derivation.
Androcles:
The definition given by Einstein in section 1 of "On the Electodynamics
of Moving Bodies" is: 'the "time" required by light to travel from A to
B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A.'
Roberts:
General symmetry properties of space-time are
sufficient to determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation
[to within a topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that
it is IMPOSSIBLE to formulate an alternative to Special Relativity,
while obeying the observed symmetries of space-time and agreeing with
the experimental evidence [see below about the limitations of the
symmetry postulates used in this derivation].
Androcles:
The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to DEFINE time such that
t1 = AB/c and t2 = BA/(-c), and is FALSE that ABA/(t'A-tA) =
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
in agreement with experience.
Roberts:
This article will, I hope, show why physicists believe in Special
Relativity (within its applicable domain), and are extremely
sceptical of "alternative descriptions".
Androcles:
This article will, I hope, show why "physicists" [ha ha] who believe in
The Holy Church of Special Relativity (within its applicable domain) are
extreme phuckwits, suckered in by Einstein's hoax.
Roberts:
Historically, it took a long time for physicists to accept Special
Relativity.
Androcles:
Historically, it took a long time for astronomomers to accept the
Copernican view of the solar system over the Ptolemaic view, supported
by the true believers of the bullshit brigade.
Roberts:
Even today, the compelling derivation given here is usually not
presented in textbooks; I don't know why.
Androcles:
Even today, text book derivations are not compelling, being the work of
a Phuckwit. Science is not about persuasion, but empirical evidence.
Roberts:
I claim no originality for this derivation; I do not know who originally
discovered it; I have re-created it based upon dimly-remembered ideas
from graduate school.
Androcles:
"Dimly remembered" is an inappropriate term to apply to Roberts, he's
forgotten basic algebra.
Written by:
Tom Roberts
Lucent Technologies / Bell Laboratories
tjro...@lucent.com
original date: sometime 1989-1990
Colloquially, a Lorentz Transformation is called a "boost".
This derivation will be heavy going, in algebra; I hope it will be
understandable to most people with a good understanding of elementary
algebra, and a smattering of common sense.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of
eighteen. - Albert Einstein.
Roberts:
This is NOT a rigorous mathematical derivation,
Androcles:
That's right, Roberts, it isn't a deriviation at all.
Roberts:
but one at the level of rigor common to physicists.
Androcles:
Right again, Roberts, a REAL physicist isn't gullible and you are. The
"derivation" offered isn't mathematical, merely some symbol shuffling
without defining the symbols correctly. 2AB is not AB + BA, it is zero.
Roberts:
NOTATION:
F(x) F is a function of x
a*b a multiplied by b
A**2 A squared (raised to the 2nd power == A*A)
== "is identical to", or "is the same as"
= mathematical equality (NOT the FORTRAN meaning)
First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief discussion.
Then, the general form of the transformation equations will be derived,
followed by a brief discussion of their implications.
THE MAPPING POSTULATE
When two observers observe the same physical space-time, they assign
individual coordinate systems to THE SAME points of space-time. There is
a relation between the assignments they (separately) make, which is
called a coordinate transformation, usually expressed as a consistent
set of mathematical formulas relating the coordinates of one observer
to the coordinates of the other. The coordinate transformation from one
system to the other MUST be one-to-one and onto the other, BECAUSE THEY
ARE DESCRIBING THE SAME PHYSICAL SPACE-TIME; the transformation must
be invertible (see Relativity Postulate, below).
Androcles:
That is what the Galilean Transformation does, and perfectly.
Nor does the Galilean transformation have a "limited domain of
applicability".
Roberts:
[Mathematicians worry about a lot of conditions for this, and
for the other Postulates; this is a Physicist's derivation, and
will assume that physical systems satisfy the mathematical
conditions necessary (continuity, etc.).]
Androcles:
Roberts refers to himself as a "Physicist". He means "Phuckwitist".
Roberts:
THE ISOTROPY/HOMOGENEITY POSTULATE
Space is isotropic, in that there is no "preferred direction" in
space. The transformation must have the same mathematical form
for a boost in any (spatial) direction. Space is also homogeneous,
in that there is no "preferred position" in space. The
transformation must have the same mathematical form for any origin
of coordinates; this applies to time, as well.
THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable.
Androcles:
EXCEPT the velocity of light. That is very much a preferred velocity.
However, only relative velocities (INCLUDING THAT OF LIGHT) are
observable.
Roberts:
If coordinate system S' is moving with velocity v, as observed in
coordinate system S, then S is moving with velocity -v, as observed in
S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical physics.
Today, it seems natural.]
Androcles:
Actually, what Roberts said is so stupid as to be laughable. If the Sun
apppears to move from East To West across the sky, then the Earth is
rotating from West to East; we've known that since Copernicus. Nor does
Einstein depart from classical physics in that.
Roberts:
THE GROUP POSTULATE
The collection of all possible Transformations must form a
group under composition by successive application of transformations.
This is the key postulate, and the one that makes a general derivation
of the transformation equations possible; it imposes severe constraints
on the form of the equations. It has four important implications:
1. An identity transformation exists, which maps a coordinate system
to itself.
2. Any transformation has an inverse, which is also a transformation.
3. The result of applying two transformations in succession is itself
a transformation.
4. The application of three transformations in succession follows the
law of associativity [ABC = (AB)C = A(BC)].
[This is a more modern approach to the subject than was common
in Einstein's day; Einstein was instrumental in pointing out
how important symmetries are in physics, which leads naturally
to group theory.]
Those are the Postulates; make sure you understand and believe in them
now, because they are sufficient to derive the general form of the
transformation equations.
Androcles:
Yeah, sure:
(c+v)/ (1 + v/c) = (c+v+w)/ (1 + (v+w)/c) = c.
Highly associative in phuckwits, but not in mathematics.
Roberts:
[It may be a surprise to some readers that no postulate includes
a statement that light has the same speed in all frames; such
a statement is not required. This is just one example of the
power of group theory.]
Androcles:
That is correct. There is a definition instead, 'the "time" required
by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
from B to A' which holds true because Einstein says so, and that is his
departure from classical physics. If you send a signal to Mars and then
move, the time for the signal to reach Mars equals the time for the
return, no matter where you move to. Your clock will automatically
adjust itself to compensate.
Roberts:
Now for the math...
Androcles:
Now for the excrement of the male bovine...
Roberts:
This derivation will be done in "1+1" dimensions, that is, for one space
coordinate and one time coordinate. The derivation would follow similar
lines in "3+1" dimensions, but the extra complexity would exhibit no
additional features.
There are three frames of reference (or coordinate systems) of interest;
they will be called S, S', and S"; their coordinates will be called
x and t, x' and t', and x" and t", respectively. They are constructed
so that their x, x', and x" axes are all collinear, with the origins
of coordinates coincident (i.e. in the exact same place in the real
(i.e. physical) space-time); that is, the coordinates x=0,t=0 and
x'=0,t'=0 and x"=0,t"=0 all refer to the same point (event) in the
real space-time. The Homogeneity Postulate guarantees that no special
significance arises from their coincident origins of coordinates.
All three frames will use the same scales for length and time (these
simplifications are not necessary, but relaxing them would add
unenlightening complexity).
The difference between the three frames is their relative velocities.
We will call the velocity of S' as measured in S, u; S" as measured
in S' is v; S" as measured in S is w. The physical situation ensures
that these assignments can all be made. Implicit is the assumption
that the relative velocities are constant (but arbitrary).
The Mapping Postulate and the Homogeneity postulate imply that the
transformation equations are linear, with coefficients independent
of position. That is
x' = A(u)*x + D(u)*t + E(u) 1
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t + F(u) 2
The coefficients (A,B,C,D,E,F) can depend upon the relative velocity
between S' and S (i.e. upon u), but there is no other quantity that
can have physical relevance. Thus, eqn 1 & 2 are the most general
possible transformation equations satisfying the postulates.
Androcles:
x'' = A'(v)*x' + D'(v)*t' + E'(v) 1'
t'' = B'(v)*x' + C'(v)*t' + F'(v) 2'
Roberts:
This is important; if there were other powers of x or t on
the right-hand side, the transformation would not be one-to-one
everywhere. If the coefficients depended upon x or t (as they
do in General Relativity - see below), then space-time would
not be homogeneous and isotropic.
[Some other derivations use a postulate that straight lines
are transformed into straight lines to deduce the linearity
of the transformation equations.]
Androcles:
Or the function tau() would not be linear, which it isn't.
Roberts:
The translation terms (E(u) and F(u)) can easily be calculated,
based upon the construction of the systems S and S'; they are both 0.
They are not functions of u, because we arranged for coincident
coordinate
origins independently of u (i.e. for each value of u, the origins were
individually arranged to be coincident). This is true also for the
other transformations (S' to S", and S to S"). The Homogeneity Postulate
guarantees that this choice has no physical significance.
Since S' is moving with velocity u relative to S, the point x'=0
is moving with velocity u (with respect to S); this allows us to
solve for D(u), with no loss in generality:
x' = A(u) * (x - u*t) 3
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t 4
Androcles:
x" = A'(v) * (x' - v*t') 3'
t" = B'(v)*x + C'(v)*t' 4'
Roberts:
Note: u=0 is certainly possible, in which case S'==S, so A(0)=1,
B(0)=0, C(0)=1 (i.e. x'=x and t'=t). In the following, u and v will
be assumed to be non-zero, but w will have no such restriction.
The transformations S' to S", and S to S" follow similarly:
x" = A(v) * (x' - v*t') 5
t" = B(v)*x' + C(v)*t' 6
x" = A(w) * (x - w*t) 7
t" = B(w)*x + C(w)*t 8
Androcles:
Roberts has not shown A'(u) = A(u).
Also note that he has chosen w = v+u, and not w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) as
required,
and wt = (ut + vt')
So ist klar and in agreement with experience Roberts has about as much
knowledge of mathematics as Einstein. Zilch.
Roberts:
We will now use the Group Postulate to compose Eqns 3 and 4 with
Eqns 5 and 6, to get 7 and 8 (i.e. u and v are arbitrarily fixed,
and w will be determined from them).
Substituting 3 and 4 into 5 and 6:
x" = [A(v)*A(u) - A(v)*v*B(u)]*x - [A(v)*v*C(u) + A(v)*A(u)*u]*t 9
t" = [B(v)*A(u) + C(v)*B(u)]*x + [(-u)*B(v)*A(u) + C(v)*C(u)]*t 10
Comparing 9 and 10 with 7 and 8, and equating coefficients of
x and t (Eqns 7-10 are each valid for ALL x and ALL t), we conclude:
Androcles:
We conclude that Roberts is a phuckwit who has already gone disastrously
wrong.
(c+v)/(1+v/c) = c doesn't make the composition operator and the set R
a group.
Compelling derivation failed. Must try harder. 1 out of 10 for effort.
Now for the real math.
The light leaves the caboose and arrives at the engine, then reflects
back to the caboose.
If you want to piss a relativist off let the light leave the engine,
reflect at the caboose and return to the engine.
The diagram is like this (fixed font needed).
|
|
| C'
| /
| B /
| ____________Mirror
| /\ /
| / \ /
C / \ /
|\ / \ /
| \ / \A'
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \ / /
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \/ |
| /\ /
| / \ / |
| / \ /
| / \ / |
| / ____\/__________Mirror
| /
| / D |
|/
/ ____________|____|________________
A D B A' C'
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to [A'].
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from C to D equals the "time" it requires to travel from D to C'.
Distance between mirrors is x'
Einstein's equation:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
What it means in the diagram:
稼tau(A,t)+tau(A',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(B,t+x'/(c-v))
稼tau(C,t)+tau(C',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(D,t+x'/(c PLUS v))
So the time at B, the engine, equals the time at D, the caboose,
but it doesn't. Ergo Einstein was a phuckwit.
Hence it is really necessary to point out that Roberts is one of those
phuckwits ripping you off.
Androcles
JanPB
> "Cosmik Debris" <cosmik...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:1126742292.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > "Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> | > news:19819-432...@storefull-3133.bay.webtv.net...
> | > | Tom Roberts: Thanks for your post. I agree with you 100%. The
> model
> | > | does not cause the thing modeled.
> | >
> | > Roberts is a cheat and an imbecile.
> | >
> | [...more insults follow]
> |
> | Is this really necessary? I didn't learn much from this post, I do
> from
> | Tom's.
>
>
> If you wish to learn garbage, talk to smooth-talking Roberts and be
> taken in.
Excuse me, but SAYS WHO? A guy who cannot answer a simple physics
question from around the time of Johann Sebastian Bach but keeps
posting utterly nonsensical criticisms of a 20th century theory? A guy
who uses invective as an argument?
> Androcles:
> The definition given by Einstein in section 1 of "On the Electodynamics
> of Moving Bodies" is: 'the "time" required by light to travel from A to
> B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.'
This is not a definition of time, it's merely definiton of a clock sync
convention. Such clock sync convention is not a component of SR - it's
there only for convenience.
SR can be stated in terms that never use any clock sync.
Bottom line: the definition you quoted is not what "makes SR go".
> Roberts:
> General symmetry properties of space-time are
> sufficient to determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation
> [to within a topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that
> it is IMPOSSIBLE to formulate an alternative to Special Relativity,
> while obeying the observed symmetries of space-time and agreeing with
> the experimental evidence [see below about the limitations of the
> symmetry postulates used in this derivation].
>
> Androcles:
> The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to DEFINE time such that
> t1 = AB/c and t2 = BA/(-c), and is FALSE that ABA/(t'A-tA) =
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
> in agreement with experience.
Words, words, words. Until you produce an argument all this is just
talk.
I don't think the rest is worth responding to.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126749670.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Cosmik Debris" <cosmik...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in
message
| > news:1126742292.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:19819-432...@storefull-3133.bay.webtv.net...
| > | > | Tom Roberts: Thanks for your post. I agree with you 100%.
The
| > model
| > | > | does not cause the thing modeled.
| > | >
| > | > Roberts is a cheat and an imbecile.
| > | >
| > | [...more insults follow]
| > |
| > | Is this really necessary? I didn't learn much from this post, I do
| > from
| > | Tom's.
| >
| >
| > If you wish to learn garbage, talk to smooth-talking Roberts and be
| > taken in.
|
| Excuse me, but SAYS WHO?
No, you are not excused.
A guy who cannot answer a simple physics
| question from around the time of Johann Sebastian Bach but keeps
| posting utterly nonsensical criticisms of a 20th century theory?
I'll try to answer yours. What is the simple physics question from
around
the time of Johann Sebastian Bach I can't answer?
| A guy who uses invective as an argument?
Non sequitur, phuckwit. I don't use lies as an answer.
| > Androcles:
| > The definition given by Einstein in section 1 of "On the
Electodynamics
| > of Moving Bodies" is: 'the "time" required by light to travel from A
to
| > B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.'
|
| This is not a definition of time, it's merely definiton of a clock
sync
| convention.
We establish by DEFINITION that the "TIME" ....
is not a definition of time.
You moron!
You imbecile!
YOU FUCKING LIAR!
What other argument do I have left except invective?
| Such clock sync convention is not a component of SR - it's
| there only for convenience.
You completely total useless no-nothing phuckwit!
|
| SR can be stated in terms that never use any clock sync.
|
| Bottom line: the definition you quoted is not what "makes SR go".
Bottom line is you can't read and belong in a mental institution along
with George Hammond, Dinky van de Phuckwit, Tom Roberts and all the
other incompetent incomprehensible dingbats.
|
| > Roberts:
| > General symmetry properties of space-time are
| > sufficient to determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation
| > [to within a topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is
that
| > it is IMPOSSIBLE to formulate an alternative to Special Relativity,
| > while obeying the observed symmetries of space-time and agreeing
with
| > the experimental evidence [see below about the limitations of the
| > symmetry postulates used in this derivation].
| >
| > Androcles:
| > The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to DEFINE time such that
| > t1 = AB/c and t2 = BA/(-c), and is FALSE that ABA/(t'A-tA) =
| > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
| > in agreement with experience.
|
| Words, words, words. Until you produce an argument all this is just
| talk.
|
| I don't think the rest is worth responding to.
|
| --
| Jan Bielawski
Seek help, you are psychotic.
Androcles
Daniel Weston
curvature of spacetime causes gravity.