A Question About the Lorentz Contraction.
Logical Pike
length contraction, like time dilation, is a real effect. Does anybody
in this newsgroup take issue with this statement? What does Krane mean
by his statement?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tom Roberts
> Kenneth Krane, in his textbook "Modern Physics" states that the
> length contraction, like time dilation, is a real effect. Does anybody
> in this newsgroup take issue with this statement? What does Krane mean
> by his statement?
"Real" is one of those words which take on many different meanings
depending on context, and many different people ascribe different
meanings to it even in the same situation.
In SR, length contraction and time dilation are "real" in the sense
that the "stationary" observer can indeed consider moving objects
to be so contracted and dilated (i.e. her measurements of them will
behave that way). But they are not "real" in the sense that they
affect the object itself -- they don't. They are manifestations of
perspective, and looking at an object from a different perspective
induces no change in the object itself. This is a difference in the
_relationship_ between object and observer (i.e. geometry).
Time dilation certainly has real, physical consequences: pion
beams exist which are much longer than the pion lifetime times
the pion velocity wrt the lab (without time dilation no pions
would remain at the end of the beamline). I know of no similarly
simple consequence of length contraction....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Eli Botkin
Krane means this:
With regard to time dilation: If someone leaves you and then returns to
you, the clock he carried with him will show a shorter elapsed time for the
trip than your clock shows.
With regard to length contraction: ANY scheme you devise to measure a rod,
of 1 meter length when measured at rest, but now moving in the direction of
its length, will yield a measurement result less than 1 meter.
Those are real effects, results of observation and measurement.
Eli Botkin
Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hec5i$l5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Kenneth Krane, in his textbook "Modern Physics" states that the
> length contraction, like time dilation, is a real effect. Does anybody
> in this newsgroup take issue with this statement? What does Krane mean
> by his statement?
>
>
Matt Giwer
>
> Kenneth Krane, in his textbook "Modern Physics" states that the
> length contraction, like time dilation, is a real effect. Does anybody
> in this newsgroup take issue with this statement? What does Krane mean
> by his statement?
Don't listen to me. I'm an old reprobate.
One can observe a particle but seeing a rod is an artifact of
viewing. One could (and arguably should, not to be confused) see
a bunch of atoms making up the rod. One might also be able to
probe the atomic bonds between the atoms.
SR is silent on the strengthening of atomic bonds with velocity
so we have no idea if they will "contract" the atoms. As there is
no ether the space between atoms has no real existance. So the
space can not contract.
IOW other words, until someone actually observes something more
than particles "contracting" we have no idea what we will
observe. And even with "particles" SR is silent on them.
Consider a disk flying by. SR says the disk will look thinner.
Now consider a stack of disks flying by. Each should look
thinner. Now weld the disks together.
When someone tries that experimentally we will discover what we
observe.
It all balances out nice if we assume there will be
observational contraction but this would not be the first time
actual observation has thrown things into a cocked hat. (Don't
drop those weights, damn it!)
--
<A href="http://www.giwersworld.org">A free internet for a free
people.</a>
The Droll Troll
Matt Giwer
>
> Reply to Logical Pike:
>
> Krane means this:
> With regard to time dilation: If someone leaves you and then returns to
> you, the clock he carried with him will show a shorter elapsed time for the
> trip than your clock shows.
>
> With regard to length contraction: ANY scheme you devise to measure a rod,
> of 1 meter length when measured at rest, but now moving in the direction of
> its length, will yield a measurement result less than 1 meter.
>
> Those are real effects, results of observation and measurement.
And what will I observe by that same measure if 500 1 mm blocks
separated by 1 mm stacked like a meter stick come by?
Reduce that question to subatomic particles and provide a
similar answer.
Unless I have a difference in apparent occupied space to observe
I can not observe a difference in length. And of course space can
not have a velocity as there is no ether and can not have a
velocity so it can not contract.
Eli Botkin
If you ask: "What does SR predict about what I will observe by that same
measure if 500 1 mm blocks, separated by 1 mm, stacked like a meter stick
come by? ", the answer is the same. The 500 1mm blocks will measure less,
as will each of the 1mm separations. If you reject SR and its validating
experiments, then you're on your own to find the theory and validations that
give you the answer you would rather have.
Eli Botkin
Matt Giwer <jul...@ij.net> wrote in message news:393B04B4...@ij.net...
Matt Giwer
>
> Reply to Matt Giwer:
>
> If you ask: "What does SR predict about what I will observe by that same
> measure if 500 1 mm blocks, separated by 1 mm, stacked like a meter stick
> come by? ", the answer is the same.
Prediction and reality are clearly different.
> The 500 1mm blocks will measure less,
> as will each of the 1mm separations.
How can they as space can not be compressed? And it is only
space that permits measurement?
> If you reject SR and its validating
> experiments, then you're on your own to find the theory and validations that
> give you the answer you would rather have.
I am only humbly asking questions.
MLuttgens
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote :
>Subject : A Question About the Lorentz Contraction.
>From : Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com>
>Date : Sun, 04 Jun 2000 19:54:31 GMT
>
> Kenneth Krane, in his textbook "Modern Physics" states that the
>length contraction, like time dilation, is a real effect. Does anybody
>in this newsgroup take issue with this statement? What does
>Krane mean by his statement?
Go to my home page
http://members.aol.com/mluttgens/index.htm
and click on "On the nature of relativistic effects":
<< On the nature of relativistic effects
The reciprocal effect of length contraction and time
dilation, which appears by logical necessity to emerge from
the kinematic part of the special theory of relativity, has
been variously explained as
1. true but not really true (guess who)
2. real
3. not real
4. apparent
5. the result of the relativity of simultaneity
6. determined by measurement
7. a perspective effect
8. mathematical.
Here is a small selection from the literature; references
are found at the end of Part 2. Unless placed in quotation
marks, authors' assessments are summarized.
1. Effects are true but not really true:
Pride of place goes to Eddington [1928, 33-34]:
"The shortening of the moving rod is true , but it is not
really true."
(Thanks to Prof. I. McCausland, Toronto, for contributing
this gem.)
2. Effects are real:
Arzelies [1966, 120-121]:
The Lorentz Contraction is a Real Phenomenon. ...
Several authors have stated that the Lorentz contraction
only seems to occur, and is not real. This idea is false.
So far as relativistic theory is concerned, this
contraction is just as real as any other phenomenon.
Admittedly ... it is not absolute, but depends upon the
system employed for the measurement; it seems that we might
call it an apparent contraction which varies with the
system. This is merely playing with the words, however. We
must not confuse the reality of a phenomenon with the
independence of this phenomenon of a change of system. ...
The difficulty arises because we have become accustomed to
the geometrical concept of a rigid body with a definite
shape, whatever the measuring system. This idea must be
abandoned. ... We must use the term "real" for every
phenomenon which can be measured ... The Lorentz
Contraction is an Objective Phenomenon. ...
We often encounter the following remark: The length of a
ruler depends upon its motion with respect to the observer.
... From this, it is concluded once again that the
contraction is only apparent, a subjective phenomenon. ...
such remarks ought to be forbidden.
Krane [1983, 23-25]:
It must be pointed out that time dilation is a real effect
that applies not only to clocks based on light beams but to
time itself. All clocks will run more slowly as observed
from the moving frame of reference. ...
The length measured by the moving observer is shorter. It
must be emphasized that this is a real effect.
Matveyev [1966, 305]:
The dimensions of bodies suffer contraction in the
direction of motion ... A body is, therefore, "flattened"
in the direction of motion. This effect is a real effect
...
Møller [1972, 44]:
Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by
experiment. It expresses, however, not so much a quality of
the moving stick itself as rather a reciprocal relation
between measuring-sticks in motion relative to each other.
... According to relativistic conception, the notion of the
length of a stick has an unambiguous meaning only in
relation to a given inertial frame. ... This means that the
concept of length has lost its absolute meaning.
Pauli [1981, 12-13]:
We have seen that this contraction is connected with the
relativity of simultaneity, and for this reason the
argument has been put forward that it is only an "apparent"
contraction, in other words, that it is only simulated by
our space-time measurements. If a state is called real only
if it can be determined in the same way in all Galilean
reference systems, then the Lorentz contraction is indeed
only apparent, since an observer at rest in K' will see the
rod without contraction. But we do not consider such a
point of view as appropriate, and in any case the Lorentz
contraction is in principle observable. ... It therefore
follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a
single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation
between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and
this relation is in principle observable.
Schwinger [1986, 52]:
Each will observe the other clock to be running more
slowly. This is an objective fact. It is not a property of
clocks but of time itself.
Tolman [1987, 23-24]:
Entirely real but symmetrical.
3. Relativistic effects are not physically real:
Taylor & Wheeler [1992, 76]:
Does something about a clock really change when it moves,
resulting in the observed change in the tick rate?
Absolutely not! Here is why: Whether a clock is at rest or
in motion ... is controlled by the observer. You want the
clock to be at rest? Move along with it. ... How can your
change of motion affect the inner mechanism of a distant
clock? It cannot and it does not.
4. Relativistic effects are apparent:
Aharoni [1985, 21]:
The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to
go slow.
Cullwick [1959, 65, 68]:
[A] rod which is at rest in S' ... appears to the observer
O to be contracted ... Similarly, a rod at rest in S will
appear in S' to be contracted....
Jackson [1975, 520]:
The time as seen in the rest system is dilated.
Joos [1958, 243-244]:
The interval appears to the moving observer to be
lengthened. A body which appears to be spherical to an
observer at rest will appear to a moving observer to be an
oblate spheroid.
McCrea [1954, 15-16]:
The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be
lengthened; clocks appear to go slow.
Nunn [1923, 43-44]:
A moving rod would appear to be shortened. An interval is
always less than measured by the other observer.
Whitrow [1980, 255]:
Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e. structural,
changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein's
theory involves only apparent changes, and these are
independent of the microscopic constitution and hidden
mechanisms controlling the structure of matter. [Unlike]...
real changes, these apparent phenomena are reciprocal.
5. Relativistic effects are the result of the
relativity of simultaneity:
Bohm [1965, 59]:
When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not
referring to the same events.
French [1968, 97],
Rosser [1967, 37],
Stephenson & Kilmister [1987, 38-39]:
Measurements of lengths involve simultaneity and yield
different numerical values.
6. Relativistic effects are determined by
measurements:
Schwartz [1972, 113]:
Each observer determines distances to be foreshortened.
7. Relativistic effects are comparable to perspective
effects: Rindler [1991, 25-29]:
Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect.
But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself.
Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real.
Moving clocks go slow, a 'velocity-perspective' effect.
Nothing at all happens to the clock itself. Like
contraction, this effect is real.
8. Relativistic effects are mathematical:
Eddington [1924, 16-18]:
The connection between lengths and intervals are problems
of pure mathematics. A travelling clock gives a low
reading.
Minkowski [1908, 81]:
[The] contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence
of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but
simply as a gift from above, - as an accompanying
circumstance of the circumstance of motion.
Rogers [1960, 496]:
Thus we have devised a new geometry, with our clocks and
scales conspiring, by their changes, to present us with a
universally constant speed of light. >>
Matter234
(snip)
Hillarious. Thanks
Eli Botkin
1. Reality is what we are ALL seeking to understand.
2. Theories that successfully predict seem to be our best window on
"Reality".
3. You are doing more than "humbly asking questions". You are making some
grand, unsubstantiated assumptions on what space can and can't do.
Eli Botkin
Matt Giwer <jul...@ij.net> wrote in message news:393B3094...@ij.net...
Logical Pike
mlut...@aol.com (MLuttgens) wrote:
> In article <8hec5i$l5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Logical Pike
> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote :
>
> >Subject : A Question About the Lorentz Contraction.
> >From : Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com>
> >Date : Sun, 04 Jun 2000 19:54:31 GMT
> >
> > Kenneth Krane, in his textbook "Modern Physics" states that the
> >length contraction, like time dilation, is a real effect. Does
anybody
> >in this newsgroup take issue with this statement? What does
> >Krane mean by his statement?
>
some of the conflicting statements. What a mess! Job well done, sir!
:-)
Glird
<TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> writes:
>In SR, length contraction and time dilation are "real" in the sense
>that the "stationary" observer can indeed consider moving objects
>to be so contracted and dilated (i.e. her measurements of them will
>behave that way). But they are not "real" in the sense that they
>affect the object itself -- they don't. They are manifestations of
>perspective, and looking at an object from a different perspective
>induces no change in the object itself. This is a difference in the
>_relationship_ between object and observer (i.e. geometry).
>
How do you explain how "rotations", which don't actually happen,
and "perspective", which therefore also doesn't come into play,
can account for the Lorentz deformations without which the STR
transformations won't work?
glird
Matt Giwer
>
> Another reply to Matt Giwer:
>
> 1. Reality is what we are ALL seeking to understand.
>
> 2. Theories that successfully predict seem to be our best window on
> "Reality".
Then what may be the correct prediction?
> 3. You are doing more than "humbly asking questions". You are making some
> grand, unsubstantiated assumptions on what space can and can't do.
Not in the least. Is not the first principle of relativity that
there must be relative velocity between objects? If one could
have relative motion to space one could know absolute velocity.
And that takes us back to an ether which is a rather unpleasant
place to be this late in the game.
Eli Botkin
A physical theory, say, makes a prediction of the result we should expect
(within some error bound) if we were to make a measurement of a parameter
that is germane to that theory. If our subsequent measurement satisfies the
theory's prediction, we can say that at least on this score, the theory is
correct.
If you, Matt, will only accept a theory that also predicts that it, itself,
is the last word and that no other theory will ever supplant it, then I
think you are in for a long wait, with zero chance of success. For such a
theory would bring us to the end of physics.
Another point: Relative velocity is a term that makes sense only if you can
uniquely identify the two objects whose relative velocity you speak (or
write) of. The phrase "...relative motion to space..." carries no meaning,
unless you mean it as a shorthand way of saying motion relative to a spatial
coordinate system anchored to some identifiable object at some specified
instant.
Best of luck, Eli Botkin
Matt Giwer <jul...@ij.net> wrote in message news:393BFCD1...@ij.net...
Chris Hillman
On 5 Jun 2000, MLuttgens wrote:
> Here is a small selection from the literature; references are found at
> the end of Part 2. Unless placed in quotation marks, authors'
> assessments are summarized.
>
> 1. Effects are true but not really true:
>
> Pride of place goes to Eddington [1928, 33-34]:
>
> "The shortening of the moving rod is true , but it is not really
> true." (Thanks to Prof. I. McCausland, Toronto, for contributing this
> gem.)
Well, well, Marcel, we agree on something. Yeah, this is just awful, even
as popular writing, although Eddington perhaps thought he was making a
joke.
> 2. Effects are real:
>
> Arzelies [1966, 120-121]:
>
> The Lorentz Contraction is a Real Phenomenon. ...
> Several authors have stated that the Lorentz contraction
> only seems to occur, and is not real. This idea is false.
> So far as relativistic theory is concerned, this
> contraction is just as real as any other phenomenon.
> Admittedly ... it is not absolute, but depends upon the
> system employed for the measurement; it seems that we might
> call it an apparent contraction which varies with the
> system. This is merely playing with the words, however.
[snip more of same]
Weird: Arzelies is the one playing with words here. See my comment to
Gerry Quinn--- this kind of arguing over "reality" never led anywhere in
the two thousand year history of philosophy, and never led anywhere in
what was called physics before Newton came along and began the modern
physical enterprise, starting with the explicit recognition that the
question of "what is real" is not one he would ask; he would seek only for
a mathematical model which gave an accurate description of physical
phenomena. And, verily, so it has gone, even down unto the present day.
By the way, is this by any chance -Arzela-, the mathematician? As in the
Arzela-Ascoli theorem? I was left wondering whether "Arzelies" was a
-physicist- at all, this passage seemed so medieval in outlook.
[snip more stuff]
> Schwinger [1986, 52]:
>
> Each will observe the other clock to be running more
> slowly. This is an objective fact. It is not a property of
> clocks but of time itself.
There you go, -finally-: this is precisely the right way to think about
it. And they say Schwinger's papers are hard to read! :-/
> Tolman [1987, 23-24]:
>
> Entirely real but symmetrical.
"Symmetrical" is right, but "real" is weird. The date you give is wrong:
Tolman was long dead by 1987. You must have given the date of a Dover
reprint of a book he wrote in the thirties, nicht wahr?
> 3. Relativistic effects are not physically real:
>
> Taylor & Wheeler [1992, 76]:
>
> Does something about a clock really change when it moves,
> resulting in the observed change in the tick rate?
> Absolutely not! Here is why: Whether a clock is at rest or
> in motion ... is controlled by the observer. You want the
> clock to be at rest? Move along with it. ... How can your
> change of motion affect the inner mechanism of a distant
> clock? It cannot and it does not.
This is correct, of course, but your interpretation of what they wrote is
wrong. Ideal clocks are not affected by their state of motion.
Kinematics, however, works the way str says (and more generally, gtr).
That's just the way Nature behaves. This is what they are trying to
express.
> 4. Relativistic effects are apparent:
>
> Aharoni [1985, 21]:
>
> The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to
> go slow.
Ughgh, that is a very, very bad book. See for example my old posts on the
Moebius group for a much simpler and more natural derivation of the Thomas
precession, and then see the thoroughly confused discussion in Aharoni's
book.
Why oh why do people buy Dover books instead of -good- books?
Marcel, seriously now, if you can possibly get Frankel, The Geometry of
Physics, do so! It's a great book, very readable, very modern, and full
of fascinating insights.
[snip more confused writing by various authors, some famous, some not]
> 7. Relativistic effects are comparable to perspective
> effects: Rindler [1991, 25-29]:
>
> Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect.
Groan. -Optical- effects in str are -distinct- from the -kinematical-
effects embodied in the Lorentz transformation between two inertial
frames. Of course, the optical effects are also governed by the Poincare
group-- see again the above cited post.
> The connection between lengths and intervals are problems of pure
> mathematics. A travelling clock gives a low reading.
That doesn't make any sense, of course--- the whole point is that in both
str and Galillean kinematics, there is no notion of "a travelling object",
only of relative motion.
> [The] contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of
> resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a
> gift from above, - as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance
> of motion.
IOW, the geometrical interpretation of the mathematical model is natural,
allows us to bring our geometric intuition to bear upon understanding the
kinematics of str; as in so many other things in modern physics, noone can
say -why- Nature adores the kinematics of str, we can only be grateful
that it admits a simple and memorable geometric interpretation which
guarantees that one will never become confused.
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Eli Botkin
Glad you don't see any point of disagreement in my last post.
For some reason that still escapes me, you don't like the idea of the space
between objects contracting, even if you do accept object lengths
contracting.
SR says, in effect, that a measurement between two points in a moving frame
(relative to the measurer) will yield a contracted result compared to a
similar measurement by an observer who is at rest in the moving frame. The
two points may be the end of one disc and the start of the next disc. Are
you saying that you expect that that length measurement will not contract,
while you do expect that the length across a single disc does contract? If
you do, then I'm sorry to say that a major point of disagreement still
exists.
Hope not. Eli Botkin
Matt Giwer <jul...@ij.net> wrote in message news:393C56C9...@ij.net...
> I do not see any point of disagreement in your post. It is upon
> the phrase "...relative motion to space..." that I base my
> statement regarding the prediction of what would be observed. I
> do not see a fault in my prediction which I believe is based upon
> the theory. Because there can be no relative motion to space
> there is no prediction that space between the objects would be
> observed to contract. Therefore I saw, in accordance with the
> limits of the prediction of the theory, what would be observed.
>
> But the larger issue is no prediction regarding the space
> between atoms in an object. That is what interests me.
>
> > Best of luck, Eli Botkin
> >
> > Matt Giwer <jul...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:393BFCD1...@ij.net...
> > > Eli Botkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another reply to Matt Giwer:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Reality is what we are ALL seeking to understand.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Theories that successfully predict seem to be our best window on
> > > > "Reality".
> > >
> > > Then what may be the correct prediction?
> > >
> > > > 3. You are doing more than "humbly asking questions". You are
making
> > some
> > > > grand, unsubstantiated assumptions on what space can and can't do.
> > >
> > > Not in the least. Is not the first principle of relativity that
> > > there must be relative velocity between objects? If one could
> > > have relative motion to space one could know absolute velocity.
> > > And that takes us back to an ether which is a rather unpleasant
> > > place to be this late in the game.
> > >
>
Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
>
> Reply #4 to Matt Giwer:
>
> Glad you don't see any point of disagreement in my last post.
> For some reason that still escapes me, you don't like the idea of the space
> between objects contracting, even if you do accept object lengths
> contracting.
I do not care if it does or not. SR does not predict space
contracting.
> SR says, in effect, that a measurement between two points in a moving frame
> (relative to the measurer) will yield a contracted result compared to a
> similar measurement by an observer who is at rest in the moving frame.
Only in a universe without particles or one in which particles
can be a meter long.
> The
> two points may be the end of one disc and the start of the next disc.
Which says nothing about the space between them. That can not be
addressed by the theory.
> Are
> you saying that you expect that that length measurement will not contract,
> while you do expect that the length across a single disc does contract? If
> you do, then I'm sorry to say that a major point of disagreement still
> exists.
> Hope not. Eli Botkin
I say simply that space contraction is not addressed by SR and
can not be addressed due to it premises. Objects may be in
relative motion, space can not be in relative motion by the
assumptions of the theory.
The very premise of observation is that unchanging space is the
basis for measuring length.
> Matt Giwer <jul...@ij.net> wrote in message news:393C56C9...@ij.net...
Logical Pike
<Pine.OSF.4.21.00060...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>,
So, is the Lorentz contraction a physical effect or a book-keeping
technique?
> Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Paul B. Andersen
>
> So, is the Lorentz contraction a physical effect or a book-keeping
> technique?
Say you in your car measure the speed of another inertial car to be
50 km/h relative to you. You accelerates for a while, and then repeat
the measurement, this time measuring 60 km/h.
Is the change in speed 10m/s a physical effect or a book-keeping
technique?
The answer to this question is also the answer to your question.
Both yes and no may be right, it depend on what you mean by
the words.
I would say: yes the change of speed 10 km/h is a physical
effect since it can be measured.
Nothing physically has occurred to the other car, though.
The Lorentz contraction is exactly equivalent to the measured change
in speed (or to the measured speed, for that matter).
Whether you call it "real", "physically real" or "apparent" is
a matter of taste which can be quibbled about forever.
But I will call the speed of a car and its Lorentz contraction
physically real, even if neither is a physical attribute of the car.
Paul
tomG
is natural,
>allows us to bring our geometric intuition to bear upon
understanding the
>kinematics of str; as in so many other things in modern
physics, noone can
>say -why- Nature adores the kinematics of str, we can only be
grateful
>that it admits a simple and memorable geometric interpretation
which
>guarantees that one will never become confused.
Is that a "money back" guarantee?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
GLOBARR
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
Ref: <8hec5i$l5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000605124222...@nso-bd.aol.com>
<Pine.OSF.4.21.0006051855230.9054-
100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>
<8hi5re$cvl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Logical Pike wrote:
> So, is the Lorentz contraction a physical effect or a
> book-keeping technique?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Say you in your car measure the speed of another inertial
car to be 50 km/h relative to you. You accelerates for a
while, and then repeat the measurement, this time measuring 60
km/h. Is the change in speed 10m/s a physical effect or a
book-keeping technique? The answer to this question is also
the answer to your question.
Both yes and no may be right, it depend on what you mean by
the words. I would say: yes the change of speed 10 km/h is a
physical effect since it can be measured. Nothing physically
has occurred to the other car, though.
The Lorentz contraction is exactly equivalent to the
measured change in speed (or to the measured speed, for that
matter). Whether you call it "real", "physically real" or
"apparent" is a matter of taste which can be quibbled about
forever.
But I will call the speed of a car and its Lorentz
contraction physically real, even if neither is a physical
attribute of the car.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Now here is the perfect example of the mess we have in SR.
Listen to these great words of an SR expert: `Whether you call
it "real", "physically real" or "apparent" is a matter of
taste which can be quibbled about forever.' Now doesn't that
sound like physics??? Isn't that the clear and exact
knowledge that we all want and expect from the physics that we
are going to believe??? Isn't this all clear and exact and
perfect?????
All SR stupid thinking is for those who want to be stupid.
Let me tell you, real physics is not just a matter of taste!
It is not, it cannot be, unimportant whether it is just
apparent, or if it is real. If it is physics, then it is
real. If it is not physics, then it is unimportant. And
these words by an SR expert can be quibbled about forever,
because they have a sick understanding of our reality!!!!!!
Let us hear again these words from an SR expert: `Whether
you call it "real", "physically real" or "apparent" is a
matter of taste which can be quibbled about forever.' If you
are going to be an SR expert, then these words will be your
physics! These sick and impossible words are what you will
be supporting and teaching to those around you! What a sick
thought to think that anyone would want such a science as
this. It is not science. It is Voodoo, with no real answers
at all! With no real answers for anything!!!!!!
How does the ether answer these questions? The ether
explains that there is a real reality, in which any object,
for any one state of absolute motion, has one and only one
real length. And if you change the magnitude of motion of
this object, its length will change. End of statement! There
is in this physics, nothing that is apparent, or non-real, or
anything to quibble or to question!
Now obviously, all other objects, such as rulers, also have
their lengths also affected by their specific state of motion.
Therefore, if you measure the length of a fixed object with
rulers that have changed their motions, you will measure an
apparent change in the object that did not move. But none of
this is anything that has to be unknown, or uncertain, or
presented the way SR experts have to say it! They cannot be
certain of anything, because they have to allow for no
possibility of anything being for real or for certain. To
them, every object has to be just as unchanged as any other
object, because it would work against their `everything is as
equal in their frame as every other object is equal in their
frame' concepts. And thus there are quibbles over everything
that they see! What a sick way to believe and to think!
In the ether, we know that there are real changes, and we
also know that there are only apparent changes. And we are
not afraid to say these obvious things. Only SR experts
become confused, and `careful,' and unwilling to admit to the
most obvious of things! Shame on them, and shame on all
those who will not see the obvious!!!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
(Some day we will be able to read the FAQ?)
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
Paul B. Andersen
Well, what is your answer then?
When I measure the inertially moving car to change its speed by
10km/h, is that a physically real change of speed or is it only
apparent?
Can it be a real change when nothing is happening to the other car?
So maybe it is only apparent?
But if the speed 50km/h is real, and the 60km/h is real, how
can the difference be only apparent?
The simple point is that the word "real" may be and is used
in a number of different ways. This has nothing specifically
with SR to do.
Speed, length-contraction and time dilation are all frame dependent
entities, which means exactly that - they depend on the frame
in which they are measured, and are not intrinsic attributes
of the object.
Whether they are "real" or "apparent" is semantics, not physics.
Paul
Tom Roberts
> SR does not predict space
> contracting.
What do you mean by "space contracting"? I know of no such concept
at all, in any physical or mathematical theory.
If you relly mean the distance between atoms in a moving ruler
compared to the distance between atoms in the same ruler at rest,
then SR does indeed predict that the distance contracts (i.e. will
be measured to be smaller in the moving ruler than the ruler at
rest).
> Which says nothing about the space between them. That can not be
> addressed by the theory.
Again, if by "space" you mean "distance" you are wrong (which seems
to be the case, given your wording above). If you mean something
else you must explain what you mean.
> I say simply that space contraction is not addressed by SR and
> can not be addressed due to it premises. Objects may be in
> relative motion, space can not be in relative motion by the
> assumptions of the theory.
In modern physical theories, the word "space" is not well-enough
defined for me to correlate with your statements. If you mean the
spacetime manifold of relativity, then motion is not applicable to
it. Motion is only defined for objects and coordinate systems. This
is not based on "assumptions of the theory", this is based upon the
definitions of these words.
> The very premise of observation is that unchanging space is the
> basis for measuring length.
I disagree. The basis for meauring length is the "premise" that rulers
measure length. When used in accordance with the theory, of course
(e.g. mark both ends simultaneously if you are measuring a moving
object).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
GLOBARR
<20000606135541...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Well, what is your answer then?
O'Barr comments:
I thought I gave my answer! I don't see it here. I wonder
why it is not here? Did I really forget to give an answer??
If I had to bet, I would bet that you know my answer. If you
know my answer, then why are you asking for it??? In fact, I
bet you know my answer even better than I know it. I wonder
what this man is up to????????
Paul B. Andersen continues:
When I measure the inertially moving car to change its speed by
10km/h, is that a physically real change of speed or is it only
apparent?
O'Barr comments:
In the ether theory, we can physically explain SR math. And
thus in the ether, we have everything that you have in SR. We
thus have many things that are relative, and many things that
could be said to be `apparent.' None of this is a problem in
the ether. We know exactly what relative velocity is, and in
your example, there was an increase in the relative velocity.
But what we can say in the ether, is that if there is a change,
then there had to be a real change of something! And in this
particular example, there was a real change involved, along
with the change in the relative velocity. And acceleration
sensors would verify that there were real changes that occurred
in order for you to have seen the change in the relative
velocity. Therefore, your example is an example of where
relative changes cannot occur unless there were real changes of
one kind or another also present! So thank you for your
perfect example.
Paul B. Andersen continues:
Can it be a real change when nothing is happening to the other
car?
O'Barr comments:
You are absolutely correct! In order for relative changes
to occur between two different things, they do not both have to
change! Perfect thinking! Who said SR experts were dumb?
Paul B. Andersen continues:
So maybe it is only apparent?
O'Barr comments:
There are two cars present. For one car there were no real
changes. For the other car, there were real changes present.
For which of these two cars were you addressing your question?
Paul B. Andersen continues:
But if the speed 50km/h is real, and the 60km/h is real, how
can the difference be only apparent?
O'Barr comments:
As the ether clearly points out, there are both real changes
and apparent changes present, just as there should be. Your
very question shows that you must be confused. Sorry about you
having a theory where you cannot be clear about such simple
things!
Paul B. Andersen continues:
The simple point is that the word "real" may be and is used
in a number of different ways. This has nothing specifically
with SR to do.
O'Barr comments:
Well, in the ether, one never needs to become confused
between what is real, and what is only apparent. The theory
provides us with full understanding of all these simple things.
And you are wrong. It is SR that specifically has a problem in
these areas! You have this problem. And you should not try
again to say or infer that it is not your problem. It is a lie
to infer that it is not an SR problem!!!!!!
Paul B. Andersen continues:
Speed, length-contraction and time dilation are all frame
dependent entities, which means exactly that - they depend on
the frame in which they are measured, and are not intrinsic
attributes of the object. Whether they are "real" or
"apparent" is semantics, not physics.
O'Barr comments:
And you lie, lie, and lie! The ether theory clearly shows
that there are real changes involved. And this means that
there are changes in the intrinsic attributes of these objects.
It is physically impossible to register a change, and yet not
have any changes. It is true that any specific change might
not be specifically identifiable at all times. But there must
be a change in something, if any change is observed. And such
changes have now been confirmed! If you do not accept these
changes as being real, then you live in Voodoo land. You would
be crazy! You would be unscientific. You would be ignorant.
And we would not want to be like that, now, would we?????
The ether approach is superior to SR in all ways. It
provides us with understanding. We do not have any of the
Voodoo that is found in SR. Paul is wrong to continue to
support an inferior theory. He has no power to affect the
superiority of the ether approach, and he is getting dumber by
the minute. Sorry that you are so religiously held to such a
false concept!
Paul B. Andersen
A lot of words indeed.
The question is if measured entities are "real" or "apparent",
so let's make a concrete example.
Consider yourself to be inertial.
You have a set of real, physical metre sticks and clocks
(that is, no fantasy instruments).
You measure the speed of an object to be 100m/s in your
rest frame.
Question #1:
Is this speed "real" or "apparent"
according to your ether theory?
Please answer with one of the alternatives, and not
with a lot of words.
You measure the length of a fast moving metre stick
to be 0.9 m in your rest frame.
Question #2:
Is this shortening by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
according to your ether theory?
Please answer with one of the alternatives, and not
with a lot of words.
You measure the rate of a fast moving clock
to be 0.9 relative to stationary clocks in your rest frame.
Question #3:
Is this slowing by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
according to your ether theory?
Please answer with one of the alternatives, and not
with a lot of words.
Paul
Ken H. Seto
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>Logical Pike wrote:
>>
>> So, is the Lorentz contraction a physical effect or a book-keeping
>> technique?
>
>Say you in your car measure the speed of another inertial car to be
>50 km/h relative to you. You accelerates for a while, and then repeat
>the measurement, this time measuring 60 km/h.
>
>Is the change in speed 10m/s a physical effect or a book-keeping
>technique?
>The answer to this question is also the answer to your question.
>
>Both yes and no may be right, it depend on what you mean by
>the words.
This is pure baloney. Relative to the higway you increased you speed
by 10m/sec. while the other car maintains the same speed. There is no
confusion if you use the highway as reference for motion. There is
confusion if you refuse to acknowledge that you are traveling in the
highway.
>
>I would say: yes the change of speed 10 km/h is a physical
>effect since it can be measured.
>Nothing physically has occurred to the other car, though.
So? You only need to change the speed of your car relative to the
highway to make a change relative to all the other cars traveling
relative to you. What does this mean? It means that relative motions
with the other cars are not motions relative to the highway (ether).
>
>The Lorentz contraction is exactly equivalent to the measured change
>in speed (or to the measured speed, for that matter).
>Whether you call it "real", "physically real" or "apparent" is
>a matter of taste which can be quibbled about forever.
Here you poor understanding of nature shows up. In real life an
observer will see a moving rod to have the same material length in all
frames (moving at different speeds). However, the light path length
(the length that light need to traverse to cover the length of a
moving rod) can be contracted or expanded compared to the observer's
material rod length.
>
>But I will call the speed of a car and its Lorentz contraction
>physically real, even if neither is a physical attribute of the car.
There is no material rod length contraction and therefore Lorentz
contraction is not physically real.
Ken Seto
Matt Giwer
>
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > SR does not predict space
> > contracting.
>
> What do you mean by "space contracting"? I know of no such concept
> at all, in any physical or mathematical theory.
Me neither.
> If you relly mean the distance between atoms in a moving ruler
> compared to the distance between atoms in the same ruler at rest,
> then SR does indeed predict that the distance contracts (i.e. will
> be measured to be smaller in the moving ruler than the ruler at
> rest).
Then one would predict a meter stick to contract but if cut into
two pieces they would contract "separately" and the gap between
them to increase with velocity?
> > Which says nothing about the space between them. That can not be
> > addressed by the theory.
>
> Again, if by "space" you mean "distance" you are wrong (which seems
> to be the case, given your wording above). If you mean something
> else you must explain what you mean.
Distance can not move at any velocity relative to any
observerer. How can it contract?
> > I say simply that space contraction is not addressed by SR and
> > can not be addressed due to it premises. Objects may be in
> > relative motion, space can not be in relative motion by the
> > assumptions of the theory.
>
> In modern physical theories, the word "space" is not well-enough
> defined for me to correlate with your statements. If you mean the
> spacetime manifold of relativity, then motion is not applicable to
> it. Motion is only defined for objects and coordinate systems. This
> is not based on "assumptions of the theory", this is based upon the
> definitions of these words.
Then would not the measured separation between between the meter
stick cut in half be observed to increase with increasing
relative velocity? Were it not to increase the half meter sticks
would contract from the ends opposite the cut and thus behave
differently based upon having once been one a single stick.
> > The very premise of observation is that unchanging space is the
> > basis for measuring length.
> I disagree. The basis for meauring length is the "premise" that rulers
> measure length. When used in accordance with the theory, of course
> (e.g. mark both ends simultaneously if you are measuring a moving
> object).
Were there no space, distance if you will, how could length be
measured? I would say it is only a matter of semantics. One can
use a ruler to directly measure length or one can pre-mark a
distance to measure length.
--
Sigless in Gaza.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > If you relly mean the distance between atoms in a moving ruler
> > compared to the distance between atoms in the same ruler at rest,
> > then SR does indeed predict that the distance contracts (i.e. will
> > be measured to be smaller in the moving ruler than the ruler at
> > rest).
> Then one would predict a meter stick to contract but if cut into
> two pieces they would contract "separately" and the gap between
> them to increase with velocity?
No. Think about it -- the distance between those two pieces _also_
contracts. If the atoms in the ruler at rest are spaced at
intervals of L, then in a moving ruler the atoms will be measured
at intervals smaller than L; this applies to the cut you made in
the ruler as well [all distances along the direction of motion].
> Distance can not move at any velocity relative to any
> observerer. How can it contract?
Distance is not an "it"; it is not a thing; it is a measurement.
The measurements of inter-atomic spaces are smaller in the moving
ruler than in the ruler at rest; this is known as contraction,
but "contraction" when used this way is not really an active
verb -- this is a verbal shortcut describing the variations in
those measurements. There is no _thing_ which contracts, there
are just measurements which yield smaller values.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
GLOBARR
Ref: <393CE5BB...@hia.no>
<20000606135541...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
<8hec5i$l5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000605124222...@nso-bd.aol.com>
<Pine.OSF.4.21.0006051855230.9054-
100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>
<8hi5re$cvl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote a lot of words.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
A lot of words indeed.
O'Barr comments:
And important words, but we certainly do not need to repeat
them every time! And we really do all know what is being
said!
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The question is if measured entities are "real" or
"apparent", so let's make a concrete example.
Consider yourself to be inertial. You have a set of real,
physical metre sticks and clocks (that is, no fantasy
instruments). You measure the speed of an object to be 100m/s
in your rest frame.
Question #1:
Is this speed "real" or "apparent" according to your ether
theory? Please answer with one of the alternatives, and not
with a lot of words.
O'Barr comments:
I have no problem with saying that it is real. It can be
measured. It produces affects.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You measure the length of a fast moving metre stick to be
0.9 m in your rest frame.
Question #2:
Is this shortening by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
according to your ether theory? Please answer with one of the
alternatives, and not with a lot of words.
O'Barr comments:
With the likely possibility that we have some absolute
motion, then this change in length is most likely to contain
both some real change and some apparent change. I hope this
does not appear as if I am not making a direct answer, but it
is an honest answer!
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You measure the rate of a fast moving clock to be 0.9
relative to stationary clocks in your rest frame.
Question #3:
Is this slowing by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
according to your ether theory? Please answer with one of the
alternatives, and not with a lot of words.
O'Barr comments:
With the likely possibility that we have some absolute
motion, then this change in rate is most likely to contain
both some real change and some apparent change. I hope this
does not appear as if I am not making a direct answer, but it
is an honest answer!
Let me say this. You, Paul, know the ether theory just as
good or better than I. It is not my theory. It is LET as we
take it to be on this net. It is my concept that it is the
same theory as SR! It is my concept that we need the ether,
not to correct our math or to improve our math, but to get the
correct physics. It is my concept that the correct
presentation of the ether theory requires first the presenting
of the physical effects, and then and only then developing the
math. So I do feel that my thoughts are important. It will
improve our physics. It will give to the math certain limits,
the exact limits we need and want and observe to be necessary.
It presents to us a simpler physics, with causes and effects.
And it is time that you address these important issues, and
not concern yourself as to how many mistakes I can make over
all these insane questions! Grow up!!!!!!
What would it matter if I made a mistake or two? I have
made hundreds of mistakes in my life! And not one of these
mistakes changed what our reality is. The ether is superior,
and this is true even if I did not exist! And I believe that
you know all this! Why don't you act? We need you!!!!
Paul B. Andersen
>
> In <393E027C...@hia.no>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> Ref: <393CE5BB...@hia.no>
> <20000606135541...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
> <8hec5i$l5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> <20000605124222...@nso-bd.aol.com>
> <Pine.OSF.4.21.0006051855230.9054-
> 100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>
> <8hi5re$cvl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> A lot of words indeed.
>
> And important words, but we certainly do not need to repeat
> them every time! And we really do all know what is being
> said!
>
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> "apparent", so let's make a concrete example.
>
> Consider yourself to be inertial. You have a set of real,
> physical metre sticks and clocks (that is, no fantasy
> instruments). You measure the speed of an object to be 100m/s
> in your rest frame.
> Question #1:
> Is this speed "real" or "apparent" according to your ether
> theory? Please answer with one of the alternatives, and not
> with a lot of words.
>
> I have no problem with saying that it is real. It can be
> measured. It produces affects.
I like that answer.
"It can be measured. It is real."
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> You measure the length of a fast moving metre stick to be
> 0.9 m in your rest frame.
> Question #2:
> Is this shortening by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
> according to your ether theory? Please answer with one of the
> alternatives, and not with a lot of words.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> With the likely possibility that we have some absolute
> motion, then this change in length is most likely to contain
> both some real change and some apparent change. I hope this
> does not appear as if I am not making a direct answer, but it
> is an honest answer!
So the honest answer is that you do not know whether
the measured shortening is real or not.
Why did you not answer:
"It can be measured. It is real."
in this case?
Because you used the world "real" in a different way?
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> You measure the rate of a fast moving clock to be 0.9
> relative to stationary clocks in your rest frame.
> Question #3:
> Is this slowing by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
> according to your ether theory? Please answer with one of the
> alternatives, and not with a lot of words.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> With the likely possibility that we have some absolute
> motion, then this change in rate is most likely to contain
> both some real change and some apparent change. I hope this
> does not appear as if I am not making a direct answer, but it
> is an honest answer!
So the honest answer is that you do not know whether
the measured slowing is real or not.
Why did you not answer:
"It can be measured. It is real."
in this case?
You make a big fuss when I say that whether measured obsever
dependent entities are "real" or "apparent" is a question
of semantcis and not of physcis.
You point out that:
"Well, in the ether, one never needs to become confused
between what is real, and what is only apparent."
Now you say that you don't know what's "real" and what's "apparent".
And that's the real truth, isn't it?
According to LET, it is absolutely impossible to know what is
"real" and what is "apparent" in your meaning of the words.
Personally, I tend to say:
"It can be measured. It is real."
However, not everybody use "real" that way.
It is a question of semantics.
And it has very little with SR or ether to do.
Paul
GLOBARR
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
Ref: <393CE5BB...@hia.no>
<20000606135541...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
<8hec5i$l5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000605124222...@nso-bd.aol.com>
<Pine.OSF.4.21.0006051855230.9054-
100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>
<8hi5re$cvl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<393E027C...@hia.no>
<20000607224514...@ng-bh1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .
Paul B. Andersen wrote: . . .
> The question is if measured entities are "real" or
> "apparent", so let's make a concrete example.
>
> Consider yourself to be inertial. You have a set of real,
> physical metre sticks and clocks (that is, no fantasy
> instruments). You measure the speed of an object to be
> 100m/s in your rest frame.
> Question #1:
> Is this speed "real" or "apparent" according to your
> ether theory? Please answer with one of the alternatives,
> and not with a lot of words.
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> I have no problem with saying that it is real. It can be
> measured. It produces affects.
Andersen wrote:
I like that answer. "It can be measured. It is real."
O'Barr note:
I made several independent statements. Are you going to
infer that anything that can be measured is real? I can
measure the size of an image in a mirror, but I would hardly
call the image real just because it had a dimension.
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> You measure the length of a fast moving metre stick to be
> 0.9 m in your rest frame.
> Question #2:
> Is this shortening by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
> according to your ether theory? Please answer with one of
> the alternatives, and not with a lot of words.
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> With the likely possibility that we have some absolute
> motion, then this change in length is most likely to
> contain both some real change and some apparent change. I
> hope this does not appear as if I am not making a direct
> answer, but it is an honest answer!
Andersen wrote:
So the honest answer is that you do not know whether
the measured shortening is real or not.
Why did you not answer:
"It can be measured. It is real" in this case?
Because you used the world "real" in a different way?
O'Barr comments:
Sorry. I never changed any meaning to any word used here.
With respect to the velocity measurement, you were specifying
a relative velocity measurement. In the ether, such a
measurement is defined, and it is defined in such a way that
it is fully available to us in the frame in which we exist.
It is therefore real by definition in the sense that it
represents a defined relationship between real objects.
Let us see what it would take to make it more like the
other questions: If you had asked for the absolute relative
velocity, then my answer could have been the same for all
three questions. If you wanted the last two questions to be
answered like the first, you could have asked if the
measurements were real measurements. But you did not asked
if the measurements were real, you wanted to know if the
shortening was real. And this is different than what was
asked in the first question.
Another thing that you might be missing here is that when
we observe a relative velocity between two frames, that
observation is always real. That is, any observed relative
velocity is always an observed absolute relative velocity,
even though the magnitude of the value might differ. But
when we see a reduction of a length, or of a rate of a clock,
the real change might have been nothing at all, or even a
change in the very opposite direction than that `measured.'
Therefore, Paul, you are not being very wise, or observant,
or truthful, or scientific, in these questions. You do know
better, and I think you ought to repent!
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> You measure the rate of a fast moving clock to be 0.9
> relative to stationary clocks in your rest frame.
> Question #3:
> Is this slowing by the factor 0.9 "real" or "apparent"
> according to your ether theory? Please answer with one of
> the alternatives, and not with a lot of words.
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> With the likely possibility that we have some absolute
> motion, then this change in rate is most likely to contain
> both some real change and some apparent change. I hope
> this does not appear as if I am not making a direct answer,
> but it is an honest answer!
Andersen wrote:
So the honest answer is that you do not know whether
the measured slowing is real or not.
Why did you not answer:
"It can be measured. It is real" in this case?
O'Barr comments:
Well, as you well know, if we were at rest in the ether,
we could say that what we measured was exactly what occurred.
You are just like all SR experts. Rather than sit here and
agree on the facts, you want to make a word fight. It is
nothing but an admitting of defeat! What a sham you are!
I gave a perfectly honest answer, and you know it! And the
ether has both real and apparent changes! This is not a
problem, because in actual fact, this is what occurs. It is
you, and your SR theory, who insists that there are never any
real changes, and this is stupid. It is stupid to believe
that there are never any real changes, when real changes are
now measured. You are stupid to now put up with a theory
that is provably wrong! You are simply sick!
Andersen wrote:
You make a big fuss when I say that whether measured observer
dependent entities are "real" or "apparent" is a question
of semantics and not of physics.
You point out that:
"Well, in the ether, one never needs to become confused
between what is real, and what is only apparent."
Now you say that you don't know what's "real" and what's
"apparent".
And that's the real truth, isn't it?
According to LET, it is absolutely impossible to know what is
"real" and what is "apparent" in your meaning of the words.
O'Barr comments:
All you are doing is taking the theory, which by theory
knows exactly what is real and what is apparent, and then you
consider our personal limits. We are limited in what we can
personally know because we do not have the means of making
absolute sync, and from this you try to say that there is
some kind of a problem with the theory. The problem is you,
and your unwillingness to be scientific. Scientifically,
there is no more scientific problem to any of this than there
is with the uncertainty principle, or with normal statistics,
or for any other concept in science where part of the subject
is not seeable.
Andersen wrote:
Personally, I tend to say:
"It can be measured. It is real."
O'Barr comments:
And to say it in every case is what makes you so dumb!!!
Andersen wrote:
However, not everybody use "real" that way.
It is a question of semantics.
O'Barr comments:
And this makes you even more dumb! The ether physics does
not allow you to say it is only semantics! On the
theoretical level, the ether physics has the full physical
answer for every case that can be considered! And there is
no semantics required or allowed at any time.
Andersen wrote:
And it has very little with SR or ether to do.
O'Barr comments:
I can speak for both. In SR, all you have is semantics,
and special definitions, and special word explanations, and
special points of views. You do not know what a real
explanation is! In the ether, everything is physically
explained. You do not even have to have math in order to
give these explanations! And you certainly do not need to
play games with the meaning of words. This is the power of
having a physical explanation. You cannot disagree on things
that have been `physicalized' and conceptualized. Sorry that
we even had such a debate! It literally should make us all
sick!!!
Paul B. Andersen
But I can call the size of the image real. If I can measure
the size, I can call the measured size real.
And I can also call the image "real". Why shouldn't I?
I can see it. It's a real image.
This is a permissible way of using "real".
If you do not agree, it is a matter of semantics, not
physics.
Well, as you well know, according to LET, there is by theory
no way to know anything about the state of motion of the ether.
> You are just like all SR experts. Rather than sit here and
> agree on the facts, you want to make a word fight. It is
> nothing but an admitting of defeat!
The question was if the measured entities were real,
and your honest answer was that according to LET
you have no idea of what the answer is.
> What a sham you are!
> I gave a perfectly honest answer, and you know it! And the
> ether has both real and apparent changes! This is not a
> problem, because in actual fact, this is what occurs. It is
> you, and your SR theory, who insists that there are never any
> real changes, and this is stupid. It is stupid to believe
> that there are never any real changes, when real changes are
> now measured. You are stupid to now put up with a theory
> that is provably wrong! You are simply sick!
I can see you didn't like that you according to the ether
theory cannot know anything about the "reality" of the
measured entities.
> Andersen wrote:
> You make a big fuss when I say that whether measured observer
> dependent entities are "real" or "apparent" is a question
> of semantics and not of physics.
> You point out that:
> "Well, in the ether, one never needs to become confused
> between what is real, and what is only apparent."
> Now you say that you don't know what's "real" and what's
> "apparent".
> And that's the real truth, isn't it?
> According to LET, it is absolutely impossible to know what is
> "real" and what is "apparent" in your meaning of the words.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> All you are doing is taking the theory, which by theory
> knows exactly what is real and what is apparent, and then you
> consider our personal limits.
"our _personal_ limits"?
According to LET, there is by theory impossible to know
anything about the "reality" of measured lenghts and
clock rates. Those limits are imposed by the theory.
"Personal limits" indeed. :-)
> We are limited in what we can
> personally know because we do not have the means of making
> absolute sync, and from this you try to say that there is
> some kind of a problem with the theory.
In LET there is by theory impossible to have the means of
making "absolute synch". Whether or not that is a problem
with the theory, I leave to you.
> The problem is you,
> and your unwillingness to be scientific. Scientifically,
> there is no more scientific problem to any of this than there
> is with the uncertainty principle, or with normal statistics,
> or for any other concept in science where part of the subject
> is not seeable.
I didn't call any of this a "scientific problem".
I am simply pointing out that the theory about which you said:
"one never needs to become confused between what is real,
and what is only apparent"
rather states that there is by theory impossible to know anything
about what is real and what is only apparent.
> Andersen wrote:
> Personally, I tend to say:
> "It can be measured. It is real."
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And to say it in every case is what makes you so dumb!!!
You are free to disagree about the meaning of "real".
In which case the disagreement is about semantics,
not physics.
> Andersen wrote:
> However, not everybody use "real" that way.
> It is a question of semantics.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And this makes you even more dumb! The ether physics does
> not allow you to say it is only semantics! On the
> theoretical level, the ether physics has the full physical
> answer for every case that can be considered! And there is
> no semantics required or allowed at any time.
LET say that you by theory can never know what is real
and what is apparent.
> Andersen wrote:
> And it has very little with SR or ether to do.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I can speak for both. In SR, all you have is semantics,
> and special definitions, and special word explanations, and
> special points of views. You do not know what a real
> explanation is! In the ether, everything is physically
> explained. You do not even have to have math in order to
> give these explanations! And you certainly do not need to
> play games with the meaning of words. This is the power of
> having a physical explanation. You cannot disagree on things
> that have been `physicalized' and conceptualized. Sorry that
> we even had such a debate! It literally should make us all
> sick!!!
So to sum up the sick debate:
According to LET there is by theory impossible to know
whether measured frame dependent entities are real or
only apparent.
According to SR, the measured frame dependent entities are
just what they are measured to be, but whether you call
that "real" or "apparent" is a matter of semantics, not
physics.
Agree?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
>
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:51:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >Logical Pike wrote:
> >>
> >> So, is the Lorentz contraction a physical effect or a book-keeping
> >> technique?
> >
> >50 km/h relative to you. You accelerates for a while, and then repeat
> >the measurement, this time measuring 60 km/h.
> >
> >technique?
> >The answer to this question is also the answer to your question.
> >
> >Both yes and no may be right, it depend on what you mean by
> >the words.
>
> This is pure baloney. Relative to the higway you increased you speed
> by 10m/sec. while the other car maintains the same speed. There is no
> confusion if you use the highway as reference for motion. There is
> confusion if you refuse to acknowledge that you are traveling in the
> highway.
You have a remarkable ability to miss the point, Ken.
I make two different measurments of the speed
of the other car relative to me, and these measurements show
that **the speed of the other car** has changed by 10km/h
relative to me.
Nobody is confused about _why_ the measurement has changed,
but that was not the issue at all.
The issue is: can that measured change of speed of **the other car**
be called "real" or is it only "apparent"?
I say the answer is a question of semantics, not physics,
> >I would say: yes the change of speed 10 km/h is a physical
> >effect since it can be measured.
> >Nothing physically has occurred to the other car, though.
>
> So? You only need to change the speed of your car relative to the
> highway to make a change relative to all the other cars traveling
> relative to you. What does this mean? It means that relative motions
> with the other cars are not motions relative to the highway (ether).
But the question was whether or not the change in speed of the other
cars can be called "real" despite the fact that nothing is happening
to the other cars.
> >The Lorentz contraction is exactly equivalent to the measured change
> >in speed (or to the measured speed, for that matter).
> >Whether you call it "real", "physically real" or "apparent" is
> >a matter of taste which can be quibbled about forever.
>
> Here you poor understanding of nature shows up. In real life an
> observer will see a moving rod to have the same material length in all
> frames (moving at different speeds). However, the light path length
> (the length that light need to traverse to cover the length of a
> moving rod) can be contracted or expanded compared to the observer's
> material rod length.
What exactly did you say now, Ken? :-)
> >But I will call the speed of a car and its Lorentz contraction
> >physically real, even if neither is a physical attribute of the car.
>
> There is no material rod length contraction and therefore Lorentz
> contraction is not physically real.
Which is OK, Ken.
You call it "apparent", I call it "real".
Which illustrates my point:
"Both yes and no may be right, it depend on what you mean by
the words."
It is a question of semantics which could be quibbled about forever.
But is there any point in doing so?
Paulø
Ken H. Seto
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:51:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>>
>> >Logical Pike wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So, is the Lorentz contraction a physical effect or a book-keeping
>> >> technique?
>> >
>> >Say you in your car measure the speed of another inertial car to be
>> >50 km/h relative to you. You accelerates for a while, and then repeat
>> >the measurement, this time measuring 60 km/h.
>> >
>> >Is the change in speed 10m/s a physical effect or a book-keeping
>> >technique?
>> >The answer to this question is also the answer to your question.
>> >
>> >Both yes and no may be right, it depend on what you mean by
>> >the words.
>>
>> This is pure baloney. Relative to the higway you increased you speed
>> by 10m/sec. while the other car maintains the same speed. There is no
>> confusion if you use the highway as reference for motion. There is
>> confusion if you refuse to acknowledge that you are traveling in the
>> highway.
>
>You have a remarkable ability to miss the point, Ken.
>I make two different measurments of the speed
>of the other car relative to me, and these measurements show
>that **the speed of the other car** has changed by 10km/h
>relative to me.
While the relative speed of the other car has changed but what cause
this change is your absolute speed relative to the highway. The
combination of your new speed relative to the highway (analogeous to
motion in the aether) with the other car's speed relative to the
highway (the other car's absolute motion) gives rise to the change in
the measiured relative speed.
This is a real problem with SR because SR denies the existence of
ether and absolute moiton and therefore two observers traveling
relative to each other will not be able to tell whose clcok is running
fast and whose clock is running slow. This also gives rise to your
absurd split earth theory which says that from the opposite muons
point of view the earth surface in the opposite sides of the earth are
moving towards the muons and thus the earht must have split apart to
accommodate these absurd assertions.
ALL THE PROBLEMS OF SR ARE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE
OBSERVER CONSIDERS HIMSELF TO BE AT ABSOLUTE REST.
Notice that this is easily resolved if the muons' point of view is
modified---that is if they realize that they were the ones who are
doing the moving relative to the earth surfaces..
>Nobody is confused about _why_ the measurement has changed,
>but that was not the issue at all.
>The issue is: can that measured change of speed of **the other car**
>be called "real" or is it only "apparent"?
All observed relative motions are apparent. What this mean is that
they are not motion in the ether. Each object will have one motion in
the ether (absolute motion) and this motion is real.
>I say the answer is a question of semantics, not physics,
No. I say that you need to open your mind and accept the ether
concept. SR can then become a subset of a stationary ether theory. :-)
>
>> >I would say: yes the change of speed 10 km/h is a physical
>> >effect since it can be measured.
>> >Nothing physically has occurred to the other car, though.
>>
>> So? You only need to change the speed of your car relative to the
>> highway to make a change relative to all the other cars traveling
>> relative to you. What does this mean? It means that relative motions
>> with the other cars are not motions relative to the highway (ether).
>
>But the question was whether or not the change in speed of the other
>cars can be called "real" despite the fact that nothing is happening
>to the other cars.
But the other car did not change in speed. Your measurements did not
include the fact that you have increase your speed is the cause of all
your problem.
>> >The Lorentz contraction is exactly equivalent to the measured change
>> >in speed (or to the measured speed, for that matter).
>> >Whether you call it "real", "physically real" or "apparent" is
>> >a matter of taste which can be quibbled about forever.
>>
>> Here you poor understanding of nature shows up. In real life an
>> observer will see a moving rod to have the same material length in all
>> frames (moving at different speeds). However, the light path length
>> (the length that light need to traverse to cover the length of a
>> moving rod) can be contracted or expanded compared to the observer's
>> material rod length.
>
>What exactly did you say now, Ken? :-)
You don't know? Or are you playing dumb again?
>
>> >But I will call the speed of a car and its Lorentz contraction
>> >physically real, even if neither is a physical attribute of the car.
>>
>> There is no material rod length contraction and therefore Lorentz
>> contraction is not physically real.
>
>Which is OK, Ken.
>You call it "apparent", I call it "real".
>Which illustrates my point:
>"Both yes and no may be right, it depend on what you mean by
> the words."
It is not OK. The correct interpretation must be used if we want to
come up with the correct description of nature.
>
>It is a question of semantics which could be quibbled about forever.
>But is there any point in doing so?
It is not just a question of sematic. There is only one true
description of nature and this true description is capable of
explaining all the processes of nature. The SR description cannot be
it. It failed miserably in a gravity environment.
Ken Seto
>
>Paulø
GLOBARR
It must have been later than this????
mlut...@aol.com (MLuttgens) wrote:
Ref: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0006051830380.9054-
100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>
<8hec5i$l5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8hi5re$cvl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<Pine.OSF.4.21.0006051855230.9054-
100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu,
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments at the end!
(comments are being made as to what really are
the contractions in SR, as given by SR experts.
Listen to them argue amoung themselves!)
**************************
On 5 Jun 2000, MLuttgens wrote:
Here is a small selection from the literature; references are
found at the end of Part 2. Unless placed in quotation marks,
authors' assessments are summarized.
1. Effects are true but not really true:
Pride of place goes to Eddington [1928, 33-34]:
"The shortening of the moving rod is true , but it is not
really true." (Thanks to Prof. I. McCausland, Toronto, for
contributing this gem.)
2. Effects are real:
[snip more of same]
[snip more stuff]
Schwinger [1986, 52]:
Tolman [1987, 23-24]:
Entirely real but symmetrical.
Taylor Wheeler [1992, 76]:
kinematical-effects embodied in the Lorentz transformation
between two inertial frames. Of course, the optical effects
are also governed by the Poincare group-- see again the above
cited post.
The connection between lengths and intervals are problems of
pure mathematics. A travelling clock gives a low reading.
That doesn't make any sense, of course--- the whole point is
that in both str and Galillean kinematics, there is no notion
of "a travelling object", only of relative motion.
[The] contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence
of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but
simply as a gift from above, - as an accompanying circumstance
of the circumstance of motion.
IOW, the geometrical interpretation of the mathematical model
is natural, allows us to bring our geometric intuition to bear
upon understanding the kinematics of str; as in so many other
things in modern physics, noone can say -why- Nature adores the
kinematics of str, we can only be grateful that it admits a
simple and memorable geometric interpretation which guarantees
that one will never become confused.
*******************
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
This post has included a lot of great comments from such
people as G. Walton, Winchester, U.K., (E-mail:
saper...@btinternet.com), Marcel Luttgens, Logical Pike
(logic...@my-deja.com), Chris Hillman
(hil...@math.washington.edu), etc.
But only the ether theory brings sense out of all these
confused thoughts. The correct ether theory, being a physical
theory, is able to clearly explain every one of these people's
confusion and uncertainty. There are times and places where
the changes in rates of clocks and lengths of rulers are only
apparent changes. That is, the changes are due only to changes
in the tools doing the measurements, and not in the objects
being measured.
SR experts can `see' this in some of the thought problems
that they go through. The problem is, just because it has to
apply one time, does not mean that it always applies. For some
situations, there are no real changes in things, but only a
change in the sync of clocks. If you accept changes in syncs
as being real changes, then the following is correct: If any
change is observed, then some real change had to occur. A real
change had to occur either in the objects being measured, or in
the tools doing the measurements, or in both.
And so the either does allow for both real changes and for
apparent changes, depending on the specifics of the situation.
Therefore, it is easy to see why those who do not have or
understand the ether theory would become confused on all this.
There are situations where everyone can just sense that the
objects cannot be doing the changing. And yet, the total
picture would not make sense to say that there are never any
changes. The ether gives us the full and complete
understanding that makes sense, provides us will clear and
complete logic, and no one should ever again be confused!
GLOBARR
> . . .
> Andersen wrote: . . .
> I like that answer. "It can be measured. It is real."
>
> O'Barr note:
> I made several independent statements. Are you going to
> infer that anything that can be measured is real? I can
> measure the size of an image in a mirror, but I would hardly
> call the image real just because it had a dimension.
Andersen wrote:
But I can call the size of the image real. If I can measure
the size, I can call the measured size real. And I can also
call the image "real". Why shouldn't I? I can see it. It's a
real image. This is a permissible way of using "real". If you
do not agree, it is a matter of semantics, not physics.
O'Barr comments:
You do `do' all these things. So obviously, you can do it!
The question is not if you can or can't. The question is,
should you do it? In optics, you can define images to be real,
and you can define other images to be imaginary. These
`imaginary' images have dimensions!!! And I am sure that you
can say that love is real, or you can say it is not.
But in the ether theory, what is real can be associated with
that which is physical, and associated with what these physical
things do. Thus, it becomes clear that real changes do occur,
either in the objects being measured, or in the tools doing the
measurements, or in both. Just because you can sense that
under some situations, having real changes in a particular
object would not make sense, even where changes are `seen,' is
not justification for you to say that there are therefore never
any changes in things! It flies in the face of all logic, and
is actually incompatible with your own math!
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> Well, as you well know, if we were at rest in the ether,
> we could say that what we measured was exactly what occurred.
Andersen wrote:
Well, as you well know, according to LET, there is by theory
no way to know anything about the state of motion of the ether.
O'Barr comments:
In SR, it is by theory that we have no absolute! In the
ether, by theory we have an absolute. The fact that we, in
practice, do not `have an absolute,' is not due to the theory
as you say. You are incorrect to infer this. The ether theory
is unaffected whether we actually know what the absolute is or
if we do not. Only SR would be affected by such things!!!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
> You are just like all SR experts. Rather than sit here and
> agree on the facts, you want to make a word fight. It is
> nothing but an admitting of defeat!
Andersen wrote:
The question was if the measured entities were real,
and your honest answer was that according to LET
you have no idea of what the answer is.
O'Barr comments:
The question, in some cases, was not if the measured
entities were real, but if the changes were real. And in one
case, the question was if the measurement was real. If you
cannot even keep track of what the questions were, how are you
going to keep track of the answers? To me, you are simply in a
word fight, which is all you SR experts can really do! You
have no real explanations, and so you are simple sick
scientists!
Now to put you correct: The fact that I do or do not know
what is real or not for some specific situation that you pick
out, has nothing to do with what the theory knows!!!!!! We
know, by theory, that in all these cases, there can be both
real and apparent changes. And we know, by theory, that if
there is a general absolute motion existing in the measurement
frame, then in general, both of these types of changes will be
present. And the theory is solid in these conclusions, being
able to account for every possibility that has so far been seen
and measured and observed. Therefore, you are being
unscientific to infer anything less than this! Shame on
you!!!!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
> What a sham you are!
> I gave a perfectly honest answer, and you know it! And the
> ether has both real and apparent changes! This is not a
> problem, because in actual fact, this is what occurs. It is
> you, and your SR theory, who insists that there are never any
> real changes, and this is stupid. It is stupid to believe
> that there are never any real changes, when real changes are
> now measured. You are stupid to now put up with a theory
> that is provably wrong! You are simply sick!
Andersen wrote:
I can see you didn't like that you according to the ether
theory cannot know anything about the "reality" of the
measured entities.
O'Barr comments:
I know that I am the dumbest one on this net. I do not need
to know anything. What the ether theory tells us, and what SR
is unable to tell us, is that there are real physical objects,
and these real physical objects are physically affected by
changes in their motions, and the results we see and observe
around us perfectly supports the ether's point of view! And
the ether never requires us to believe in impossible 4-D
spacetime continuums, or back-in-time effects, or that there
are changes but no real changes, or that everything is just a
change in perspective, or just geometry, or just what ever set
of words you might want to say!!!! Yes, it is clear that you
can say anything, because you have nothing of substance to say.
All you can do is just apply your math. And that is all you
really have! Just you math, and just your math answers. But
you never have any real or physical explanations to anything!
> Andersen wrote:
> You make a big fuss when I say that whether measured observer
> dependent entities are "real" or "apparent" is a question
> of semantics and not of physics.
> You point out that:
> "Well, in the ether, one never needs to become confused
> between what is real, and what is only apparent."
> Now you say that you don't know what's "real" and what's
> "apparent".
> And that's the real truth, isn't it?
> According to LET, it is absolutely impossible to know what is
> "real" and what is "apparent" in your meaning of the words.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> All you are doing is taking the theory, which by theory
> knows exactly what is real and what is apparent, and then you
> consider our personal limits.
Andersen wrote:
"our _personal_ limits"?
According to LET, there is by theory impossible to know
anything about the "reality" of measured lenghts and
clock rates. Those limits are imposed by the theory.
"Personal limits" indeed. :-)
O'Barr comments:
This is simply a repeat of your previous error! The ether
theory, by theory, does not require or place any limits on us
at all!!!!! SR theory does these things, but not the ether.
Now the ether theory does explain to us the difficulties in
knowing some of these things. This is all true. And this is
no problem with the theory! It is our own problem that I am
sure we will soon be able to overcome! Only SR stands to be
defeated. The ether will have no problems in any of these
things that will soon be accomplished!
O'Barr wrote:
> We are limited in what we can
> personally know because we do not have the means of making
> absolute sync, and from this you try to say that there is
> some kind of a problem with the theory.
Andersen wrote:
In LET there is by theory impossible to have the means of
making "absolute synch". Whether or not that is a problem
with the theory, I leave to you.
O'Barr comments:
You do not have to leave it to me! You know yourself.
There is no statement in the ether theory where it is required
that no absolute sync exists! I guess you keep thinking about
SR. Why are you so desperate to find a problem?
O'Barr comments:
> The problem is you,
> and your unwillingness to be scientific. Scientifically,
> there is no more scientific problem to any of this than there
> is with the uncertainty principle, or with normal statistics,
> or for any other concept in science where part of the subject
> is not seeable.
Andersen wrote:
I didn't call any of this a "scientific problem".
I am simply pointing out that the theory about which you said:
"one never needs to become confused between what is real,
and what is only apparent"
rather states that there is by theory impossible to know
anything about what is real and what is only apparent.
O'Barr comments:
I appreciate the clarification! There are no scientific
problems with the ether theory!!!! And the problem that is
solved with the ether is the simple fact of knowing that real
changes do exist! In SR, you have this physically impossible
concept that there are never any real changes. And this
problem is solved by the ether theory! And thus what I said is
exactly correct: With the ether theory, you do not have to
become confused with what is real and with what is just
apparent. The confusion is removed! And this is true whether
we know or do not know what is real or imaginary in any
specific case that might exist! You are just looking for
problems, and there are no problems to be found. You are the
only problem that exists, and you really ought to be ashamed!
> Andersen wrote:
> Personally, I tend to say:
> "It can be measured. It is real."
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And to say it in every case is what makes you so dumb!!!
Andersen wrote:
You are free to disagree about the meaning of "real". In which
case the disagreement is about semantics, not physics.
And Andersen wrote:
> However, not everybody use "real" that way.
> It is a question of semantics.
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> And this makes you even more dumb! The ether physics does
> not allow you to say it is only semantics! On the
> theoretical level, the ether physics has the full physical
> answer for every case that can be considered! And there is
> no semantics required or allowed at any time.
Andersen wrote:
LET say that you by theory can never know what is real
and what is apparent.
O'Barr comments:
The ether theory does explain to us some of the difficulties
in doing any of this, but by theory, it is helping us to do
such things by what it tells us. This is the exact opposite of
what we have in SR, where it really is by theory impossible to
have absolute things! Sorry that you have not understood these
important differences!!!!!!!
> Andersen wrote:
> And it has very little with SR or ether to do.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I can speak for both. In SR, all you have is semantics,
> and special definitions, and special word explanations, and
> special points of views. You do not know what a real
> explanation is! In the ether, everything is physically
> explained. You do not even have to have math in order to
> give these explanations! And you certainly do not need to
> play games with the meaning of words. This is the power of
> having a physical explanation. You cannot disagree on things
> that have been `physicalized' and conceptualized. Sorry that
> we even had such a debate! It literally should make us all
> sick!!!
Andersen wrote:
So to sum up the sick debate:
According to LET there is by theory impossible to know whether
measured frame dependent entities are real or only apparent.
According to SR, the measured frame dependent entities are just
what they are measured to be, but whether you call that "real"
or "apparent" is a matter of semantics, not physics.
Agree?
O'Barr comments:
You are correct about your assessment of SR. In SR, it is
almost all semantics! It certainly is not physics! And so to
this extent, I agree with you.
But with respect to the ether, it is not like SR, and it is
not semantics, but it is all real and physical and definite in
all areas. And the ether theory does not by theory limit our
knowledge in any thing. Only SR does these stupid things!!!
The ether will actually help us to find these things, and we
will. The sooner we accept the ether, the sooner we will find
these things! And your position is unscientific!
Patrick Reany
>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
>
> This post has included a lot of great comments from such
> people as G. Walton, Winchester, U.K., (E-mail:
> saper...@btinternet.com), Marcel Luttgens, Logical Pike
> (logic...@my-deja.com), Chris Hillman
> (hil...@math.washington.edu), etc.
> But only the ether theory brings sense out of all these
> confused thoughts.
Taking them all together they are confusing! But each of these views
made sense to the person espousing it. I find that my own interpretation
of SR makes sense to me, including how I define the term "real" for use
within it.
> The correct ether theory, being a physical
> theory, is able to clearly explain every one of these people's
> confusion and uncertainty. There are times and places where
> the changes in rates of clocks and lengths of rulers are only
> apparent changes. That is, the changes are due only to changes
> in the tools doing the measurements, and not in the objects
> being measured.
>
[snip]
>
> And so the either does allow for both real changes and for
> apparent changes, depending on the specifics of the situation.
>
It is not fair to blame Einstein's relativity because of the lack of
philosophical erudition on the part of sincere but philosophically
challenged physicists! It is meaningless for anyone -- physicist,
philosopher, me, you, Einstein, anyone -- to use the term "real" without
having first defined what it means in the context it is to be used. And
all you should have done was to point this out. Instead, you make way
too much of it. You can only make your point if there is NO definition
of "real" that makes sense in SR. And even at that, the only conclusion
I could draw from that would be that the term should not even be used in
SR. But it's actually not as bad as that. If you had done a little more
research, you'd have come across Einstein's use of the term.
There are two ways I know of to define "real" in the context of
Einstein's relativity. One way is to say that a correctly made
measurement represents a "real" value (but this makes "reality" frame
dependent). And another way, which I seem to remember Einstein himself
suggesting, is that that which is "real" in relativity is ONLY that
which is frame independent. And this definition is perfectly consistent
with the philosophy of relativity. In the case of the clock comparison
where a first clock remains in inertial motion and a second clock does
not. And the second clock is initially at rest with respect to the
first, then runs off somewhere and later rejoins the first clock, a real
comparison of elapse time can be made for both clocks, both times being
proper times. The theory maintains that all inertial observers are
required to accept proper time as frame independent (Extended
Relativity). Therefore, any difference detected between the elapsed time
of the two clocks is "real" because it's frame independent, meaning that
all inertial observers will agree on the exact value of that difference.
This is an example of a CONSISTENT USE of the term "real" in SR/ER.
Similarly, the "real" lengths in SR/ER are the proper lengths.
What is and is not "real" in physics is not left to intuition or common
sense. Instead, it is a function of a good definition. Physics is a
formal system and all its terms must be defined or explicitly left as
primitive. And no one should think that leaving the term "real" as
primitive is good ontology.
O'Barr, you lucky duck. You are always able to fully exploit the
weaknesses of current physicsdom because of its lack of philosophical
awareness. And I say, "Keep up the heat"! I disagree with your
conclusions, but I'm hopeful that the result of your challenge to
physicsdom will result in a return to philosophical values in the halls
of physics. (But I won't hold my breath waiting.) Of course you realize
that your arguments in this are purely ad hominem. Difference in opinion
about the deep nature of a part of a theory does not in itself preclude
the use of the theory. Just as the eternal confusion over the deep
meaning of mathematical induction doesn't hinder its use, nor the
controversy over Lagrangians prohibit their use in mechanics.
I read your rebuttal. Where was your precise definition of the term
"real" for use in physics? I couldn't follow your argument because I had
no way to know what you meant by "real" within it. (Seems to be a
problem for you as well as the establishment. I guess you're more like
them than you admit to.) Oh yeah, that's right. You're that mystic
philosopher that doesn't believe in defining terms. OK, so how did
Newton define what's "real" in physics?
Patrick
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
Good research, O'Barr! But you left out some good quotes from
Einstein.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Wasn't the good research done by Marcel Luttgens?
O'Barr wrote: . . .
> The correct ether theory, being a physical theory,
> is able to clearly explain every one of these people's
> confusion and uncertainty. There are times and places where
> the changes in rates of clocks and lengths of rulers are only
> apparent changes. That is, the changes are due only to
> changes in the tools doing the measurements, and not in the
> objects being measured.
>
> [snip]
>
> And so the either does allow for both real changes and for
> apparent changes, depending on the specifics of the
> situation.
Reany wrote:
It is not fair to blame Einstein's relativity because of the
lack of philosophical erudition on the part of sincere but
philosophically challenged physicists!
O'Barr comments:
Some one has to take the blame!
Reany wrote:
It is meaningless for anyone -- physicist, philosopher, me,
you, Einstein, anyone -- to use the term "real" without having
first defined what it means in the context it is to be used.
O'Barr comments:
In SR, there is no physical base to the theory, and thus you
cannot ask such things as what really happens or what
physically happens or what is real. In order to use such terms
you would have to come up with some made up definitions. And
if you try to do this, then you really look and sound dumb!!!!
Reany wrote:
And all you should have done was to point this out. Instead,
you make way too much of it. You can only make your point if
there is NO definition of "real" that makes sense in SR. And
even at that, the only conclusion I could draw from that would
be that the term should not even be used in SR.
O'Barr comments:
Well, you are sure right on all these points!
Reany wrote:
But it's actually not as bad as that. If you had done a little
more research, you'd have come across Einstein's use of the
term.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry, Einstein is no longer with us. If he were, he would
accept everything I say!!!!! He would accept everything I say
because he has already said such things.
Reany wrote:
There are two ways I know of to define "real" in the context of
Einstein's relativity. One way is to say that a correctly made
measurement represents a "real" value (but this makes "reality"
frame dependent).
O'Barr comments:
And this is obviously silly! As I said, SR allows no real
explanations!
Reany wrote:
And another way, which I seem to remember Einstein himself
suggesting, is that that which is "real" in relativity is ONLY
that which is frame independent.
O'Barr comments:
And this indeed becomes silly, because those things that are
frame independent are often observe to change by frames that
are independent SR frames (frames that do not directly take
part in any particular problem.)
Reany wrote:
And this definition is perfectly consistent with the
philosophy of relativity.
O'Barr comments:
How odd. Do you really mean to imply that SR is consistent
with SR??? What great truths you like to say!!! But none of
these approaches are compatible with logic, or common sense, or
with what we know in any other area of science! You efforts
are meaningless! They are worse than meaningless. They are
simply wrong!!!!!!
Reany wrote:
In the case of the clock comparison where a first clock remains
in inertial motion and a second clock does not. And the second
clock is initially at rest with respect to the first, then runs
off somewhere and later rejoins the first clock, a real
comparison of elapse time can be made for both clocks, both
times being proper times. The theory maintains that all
inertial observers are required to accept proper time as frame
independent (Extended Relativity). Therefore, any difference
detected between the elapsed time of the two clocks is "real"
because it's frame independent, meaning that all inertial
observers will agree on the exact value of that difference.
This is an example of a CONSISTENT USE of the term "real" in
SR/ER.
O'Barr comments:
Yes, and how funny can you be. All you have done is taken
the math answer, which of course has only one value in any
consistent theory, and say that because it has a fixed answer,
then the answer is real. What you cannot say, is what did the
clocks really do in order for the math to be correct? You
cannot answer these physical questions because you do not have
any physical base to your theory! You lose, the ether wins!
Reany wrote:
Similarly, the "real" lengths in SR/ER are the proper lengths.
What is and is not "real" in physics is not left to intuition
or common sense. Instead, it is a function of a good
definition. Physics is a formal system and all its terms must
be defined or explicitly left as primitive. And no one should
think that leaving the term "real" as primitive is good
ontology.
O'Barr comments:
And when you deal with SR, you are correct. You are correct
because unless you make up non-real meanings to these real
concepts, they will be useless in SR. Thank you for proving my
points so perfectly!!!!!!
Reany wrote:
O'Barr, you lucky duck. You are always able to fully exploit
the weaknesses of current physicsdom because of its lack of
philosophical awareness. And I say, "Keep up the heat"! I
disagree with your conclusions, but I'm hopeful that the result
of your challenge to physicsdom will result in a return to
philosophical values in the halls of physics. (But I won't hold
my breath waiting.) Of course you realize that your arguments
in this are purely ad hominem. Difference in opinion about the
deep nature of a part of a theory does not in itself preclude
the use of the theory. Just as the eternal confusion over the
deep meaning of mathematical induction doesn't hinder its use,
nor the controversy over Lagrangians prohibit their use in
mechanics.
O'Barr comments:
I almost think I heard a compliment in there, somewhere.
Thanks!
Reany wrote:
I read your rebuttal. Where was your precise definition of the
term "real" for use in physics? I couldn't follow your
argument because I had no way to know what you meant by "real"
within it. (Seems to be a problem for you as well as the
establishment. I guess you're more like them than you admit
to.) Oh yeah, that's right. You're that mystic philosopher
that doesn't believe in defining terms. OK, so how did Newton
define what's "real" in physics?
O'Barr comments:
You correctly know that in SR, you cannot use such terms as
real, or physical, or even mass, without special made-up
definitions. But you seem to have forgotten, that when you
return to normal physics, such special definitions are
unnecessary. We all really know what physical really means,
and what is real and what is only Voodoo. Only in SR do you
actually use made-up definitions just so you can think that you
are doing physics. Sorry about your confusion in this area.
Working with a non-physical theory can do that to you!
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> Reany wrote:
> It is meaningless for anyone -- physicist, philosopher, me,
> you, Einstein, anyone -- to use the term "real" without having
> first defined what it means in the context it is to be used.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> In SR, there is no physical base to the theory, and thus you
> cannot ask such things as what really happens or what
> physically happens or what is real. In order to use such terms
> you would have to come up with some made up definitions. And
> if you try to do this, then you really look and sound dumb!!!!
Dumb to you perhaps. But since I'm a fairly foolish type I'll give yet
another definition (quite unlike you, of course). When I use the term
"real" in physics I mean that the "real" thing is consistent with the
set of all possible humanly observable events -- where measurement
occurs. That is, I correlate "real" with measurement. But I make no big
claims about the ontology of a measurement.
For example, the "real" length of a rod IS the number assigned to it
through the process of measuring it, and it has no other meaning in the
system (as far as I'm concerned). But length can have a meta-meaning on
top of its formal meaning.
But while I'm in this feisty mood I'll even define a measurement as it
is most commonly used in practice. A "measurement" is the end result of
a process of allowing a human-made "machine" to take in two events and
then output a number according to some human-invented rule. In more
abstract terms, a "measurement" is mapping of event pairs to a number
(a rational number to be precise) according to some pre-ordained rule.
(I am more than happy to modify this definition if it creates any
counterexamples.)
> Reany wrote:
> And another way, which I seem to remember Einstein himself
> suggesting, is that that which is "real" in relativity is ONLY
> that which is frame independent.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And this indeed becomes silly, because those things that are
> frame independent are often observe to change by frames that
> are independent SR frames (frames that do not directly take
> part in any particular problem.)
Hugh? How about an example?
> Reany wrote:
> And this definition is perfectly consistent with the
> philosophy of relativity.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> How odd. Do you really mean to imply that SR is consistent
> with SR???
You don't read very carefully, do you. Once again I have to correct you.
If we want we can do without the term "real" in SR. Just don't need it.
If we do introduce it, of course we have to stipulate a definition for
it. So, I did not say that the definition of SR is consistent with the
philosophy of SR, although it is. What I said was that the definition of
"real" that Einstein stipulated for use within SR is consistent with the
philosophy of SR.
> Reany wrote:
> In the case of the clock comparison where a first clock remains
> in inertial motion and a second clock does not. And the second
> clock is initially at rest with respect to the first, then runs
> off somewhere and later rejoins the first clock, a real
> comparison of elapse time can be made for both clocks, both
> times being proper times. The theory maintains that all
> inertial observers are required to accept proper time as frame
> independent (Extended Relativity). Therefore, any difference
> detected between the elapsed time of the two clocks is "real"
> because it's frame independent, meaning that all inertial
> observers will agree on the exact value of that difference.
> This is an example of a CONSISTENT USE of the term "real" in
> SR/ER.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, and how funny can you be. All you have done is taken
> the math answer, which of course has only one value in any
> consistent theory, and say that because it has a fixed answer,
> then the answer is real. What you cannot say, is what did the
> clocks really do in order for the math to be correct? You
> cannot answer these physical questions because you do not have
> any physical base to your theory! You lose, the ether wins!
I already completely answered that in another place replying to you
before. Why don't you tell us the rational ether explanation of time
dilation?
>
> Only in SR do you
> actually use made-up definitions just so you can think that you
> are doing physics.
Are you saying that length, time, and mass in classical physics are NOT
made-up terms with made-up definitions?
Patrick
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
> It is meaningless for anyone -- physicist, philosopher, me,
> you, Einstein, anyone -- to use the term "real" without having
> first defined what it means in the context it is to be used.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> In SR, there is no physical base to the theory, and thus you
> cannot ask such things as what really happens or what
> physically happens or what is real. In order to use such
> terms you would have to come up with some made up definitions.
> And if you try to do this, then you really look and sound
> dumb!!!!
Reany wrote:
Dumb to you perhaps.
O'Barr comments:
Originally, everyone knew what was real. We all lived in a
real world, with real objects, and the problem was not in
knowing what was real, or what real meant. The problem was only
in knowing how to make the math mimic what we all knew to be
real.
What you have done, you have elevated math to be real, and
the problem of what is real is now the problem. You say and think
you cannot know what is real until you find out what the math says. And this is
of course as dumb as you can get!!!!!
Reany wrote:
But since I'm a fairly foolish type I'll give yet another
definition (quite unlike you, of course). When I use the term
"real" in physics I mean that the "real" thing is consistent
with the set of all possible humanly observable events -- where
measurement occurs. That is, I correlate "real" with
measurement. But I make no big claims about the ontology of a
measurement.
O'Barr comments:
At least you understand what you have done. You are correct.
You have made the `measurement' real (which is a math
measurement.) And you have done this because at the base of SR,
there is no physical base upon which you could legitimately
attach `real' to. Therefore, you make up an artificial
`reality' out of your math just so you can use the word `real.'
But as you know, this is all meaningless. As some SR experts
say, it is all semantics. It is all unimportant! And so it is.
When we just make up arbitrary definitions, which are artificial
concepts, just to use words, as you do here, it is all just
semantics, and it is all just smoke and mirrors.
Reany wrote:
For example, the "real" length of a rod IS the number assigned
to it through the process of measuring it, and it has no other
meaning in the system (as far as I'm concerned). But length can
have a meta-meaning on top of its formal meaning.
O'Barr comments:
In the old days, the ruler was real, and because it was real,
then it could be measured. How interesting (and sad), that to
you, the measurement is real, and the existing of the rod is not
even of concern! You are sick! You believe in Voodoo!
Reany wrote:
But while I'm in this feisty mood I'll even define a measurement
as it is most commonly used in practice. A "measurement" is the
end result of a process of allowing a human-made "machine" to
take in two events and then output a number according to some
human-invented rule. In more abstract terms, a "measurement" is
mapping of event pairs to a number (a rational number to be
precise) according to some pre-ordained rule. (I am more than
happy to modify this definition if it creates any
counterexamples.)
O'Barr comments:
I am so glad that some machine somewhere can spit out so many
numbers. Otherwise, our existence would be so different!!!!!
And I am sure glad that it did not overlook me. I would
disappear if I didn't show up on some machine's numbering!
> Reany wrote:
> And another way, which I seem to remember Einstein himself
> suggesting, is that that which is "real" in relativity is ONLY
> that which is frame independent.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And this indeed becomes silly, because those things that are
> frame independent are often observe to change by frames that
> are independent SR frames (frames that do not directly take
> part in any particular problem.)
Reany wrote:
Hugh? How about an example?
On the earth, set up and perform a twin paradox test. Some
place out in space, set up a perfect SR measurement system and
have them make specific measurement of every event of this
paradox test. This perfect, independent, SR measurement system
will present proof that the twin that left the earth and
returned had clocks that did indeed slow down. The perfect and
independent SR measurement system will present proof that the
rulers that went with the twin that left the earth did indeed
become shorter. And you could set up an infinite number of
these independent frames, and every one of these perfect and
independent frames would all (absolutely all) would confirm that
there were changes in these things, either in their goings, or
in their comings, or in both! At no time would any of these
infinite numbers of frames report that there were no changes in
the rates of these clocks, nor would any of them say that any
clock just existed for a longer time. And thus these frames
would support the ether answer, and not your answers (not the SR
experts' answers!)
> Reany wrote (about his definition of real):
> And this definition is perfectly consistent with the
> philosophy of relativity.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> How odd. Do you really mean to imply that SR is consistent
> with SR???
Reany wrote:
You don't read very carefully, do you. Once again I have to
correct you. If we want we can do without the term "real" in
SR. Just don't need it. If we do introduce it, of course we
have to stipulate a definition for it. So, I did not say that
the definition of SR is consistent with the philosophy of SR,
although it is. What I said was that the definition of "real"
that Einstein stipulated for use within SR is consistent with
the philosophy of SR.
O'Barr comments:
Since your definition of real is artificial, then certainly
you can keep it or do away with it! And if you think you said
something above, that is all you did, was just think that you
did. Look how silly your position is! You just explained that
it did not matter if you used real or not! And thus, you prove
the point that you had nothing real to begin with! How sad!
> Reany wrote:
> In the case of the clock comparison where a first clock
> remains in inertial motion and a second clock does not. And
> the second clock is initially at rest with respect to the
> first, then runs
> off somewhere and later rejoins the first clock, a real
> comparison of elapse time can be made for both clocks, both
> times being proper times. The theory maintains that all
> inertial observers are required to accept proper time as frame
> independent (Extended Relativity). Therefore, any difference
> detected between the elapsed time of the two clocks is "real"
> because it's frame independent, meaning that all inertial
> observers will agree on the exact value of that difference.
> This is an example of a CONSISTENT USE of the term "real" in
> SR/ER.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, and how funny can you be. All you have done is taken
> the math answer, which of course has only one value in any
> consistent theory, and say that because it has a fixed answer,
> then the answer is real. What you cannot say, is what did the
> clocks really do in order for the math to be correct? You
> cannot answer these physical questions because you do not have
> any physical base to your theory! You lose, the ether wins!
Reany wrote:
I already completely answered that in another place replying to
you before. Why don't you tell us the rational ether explanation
of time dilation?
O'Barr comments:
Now isn't that a perfect Jim Carr answer. I am sure that you
think that you have done everything. And all you have really
done is shown that SR has no real physical solution to anything.
All it has is math. And it stinks!
O'Barr wrote:
>
> Only in SR do you actually use
> made-up definitions just so you can think that you
> are doing physics.
Reany wrote:
Are you saying that length, time, and mass in classical physics
are NOT made-up terms with made-up definitions?
O'Barr comments:
Absolutely not! In classical physics, there were real
objects that had mass, and motion, and size. One purpose of
science was to make it possible to measure their mass, and
lengths, and rates. To do this required many definitions and
requirements. But there was never a confusion as to what was
real, and what were efforts to determine the characteristics of
those things that were real. And this same logic exists in the
ether approach. Real things remain real, and independent. The
effort to determine the characteristics of these real things is
what becomes difficult, but not impossible.
In SR, you have lost contact with reality. You have taken
the math to be your reality, and you cannot any longer
understand. You cannot even understand your own math, and the
limits that math has, in providing us the characteristics of
reality. I feel sorry for you. But I have faith in us, and we
will succeed in this, and we will adopt the ether approach! We
will see the superiority in having explanations, and causes, and
limits to the math. And we are about to do this now! It is
time, and we will do it before we will be forced to do it!
Thanks!!!!!