SR is absurd
Edward Schaefer
>
> Edward Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > Jasper....@sci.kun.nl wrote:
> > >
> > > Edward Schaefer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jasper....@sci.kun.nl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope how blind can one be, read this thread again and post your
> > > > > objective conclusions.
> > > >
> > > > I have read it. You started with this business of "X pushes against Y
> > > > and accelerates" which led to a discussion of force vs. acceleration.
> > > > That seems to have been resolved. It then turned into a discussion of
> > > > accelerometers and then ad-homium remarks.
> > >
> > > Not resolved, I just assumed some stuff to make the thread shorter.
> > >
> > > > I never saw a remark on why you think the twin "paradox" is.
> > >
> > > Oh I thought this was clear enough and I dont like to restate it.
> >
> > Sometimes you need to restate things. I certainly thank you for not
> > doing the stunt that many other posters pull of putting forth a
> > long-winded discussion and then reposting most or all of it when they
> > are contradicted as if it wasn't seen the first time. I find that to be
> > quite positive.
> >
> > However, this thread has gotten all gummed up in side issues and snide
> > remarks, and I am not interested in doing a bunch of detective work to
> > figure out what the issues here are, especially since the only opinion
> > as to what they are that counts right now is yours.
> >
> > I wish to reset this discussion and attempt to avoid the personal
> > attacks that marred it originally. To do that I need your statement of
> > what the issues are that you would like to see resolved. Otherwise, I
> > am likely to be off on a tangent somewhere (as I apparently was with my
> > 4-quantities remarks).
> >
> > EMS
>
> Thanks but I'd prefer now to let this thread die because I've made up my
> mind.
> Those so-called 'SR-experts' are in fact dumb dumb dumb. Living in their own
> close-minds, they dont know what they are talking about.
> I'll give you a pointer which I found after loser #1 left. This explains
> where my problems come from and why they are there
> so I, neither you won't waste unneccesary time.
> http://mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
The problem is that whoever wrote that web-page has no idea of what they
are talking about. At the very least, he/she does not understand the
twin paradox, and has only a hazy understanding of GR, which in a case
like this is worse than useless.
For example:
"This circularity in the definition of inertia, ... As Einstein said:
"'The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, ...
a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far
from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from
other bodies only by the fact that it moves without
acceleration.'"
This was resolved by Einstein in 1907. Inertial motion occurs when an
object is not being subject to any forces, such as having the floor
pushing up on you. In other words, free-fall is inertial motion in
Relativity; and therefore (for example) the planets are all moving
without locally perceived acceleration. This is not to say that there
is not acceleration as perceived from other locations, but this drags us
into GR, and that is not appropriate.
The mention of GR brings us to another statement in that page:
"The question of whether general relativity is required to resolve the
twins paradox has long been a subject of lively debate."
That is a debate that long ago was resolved. SR is all that is needed,
and the realization that one twin travels in two inertial frames instead
of just one as the "stay at home" twin does. The power of Relativity
comes out when you switch frames of reference and use the Lorentz
Transformations. Otherwise it is silly.
I have an exercise that shows how the travelling twin sees the
stay-at-home twin age more even though the stay-at-home twin's clock is
slowed down throughout the trip from the viewpoint of the traveling
twin. The text is on my work computer, and I will post it later. The
key is that an acceleration changes one view of space and time, and the
coordinate time for the stay-at-home twin is decreased when the
traveling twin accelerated back towards him by just the right amount to
see the stay-at-home twin age more by the right amount.
Yes. I know this is sounds strange. Just trust me that you need to see
the exercise before commenting.
EMS
Jasper Hendriks
SR resolved? by GR?
>
> The mention of GR brings us to another statement in that page:
>
> "The question of whether general relativity is required to resolve the
> twins paradox has long been a subject of lively debate."
>
> That is a debate that long ago was resolved. SR is all that is needed,
> and the realization that one twin travels in two inertial frames instead
> of just one as the "stay at home" twin does. The power of Relativity
> comes out when you switch frames of reference and use the Lorentz
> Transformations. Otherwise it is silly.
>
One of the problems I have with SR is:
Where does the reference frame come from?
Why/how does SR make this reference frame an absolute one and not a reference
frame that moves with a velocity as the reference for example?
How can I have an absolute reference frame in my system where we have only two
observers?
Please make any explanations in relation to the system discussed so far.
>
> I have an exercise that shows how the travelling twin sees the
> stay-at-home twin age more even though the stay-at-home twin's clock is
> slowed down throughout the trip from the viewpoint of the traveling
> twin. The text is on my work computer, and I will post it later. The
> key is that an acceleration changes one view of space and time, and the
> coordinate time for the stay-at-home twin is decreased when the
> traveling twin accelerated back towards him by just the right amount to
> see the stay-at-home twin age more by the right amount.
>
> Yes. I know this is sounds strange. Just trust me that you need to see
> the exercise before commenting.
>
> EMS
It doesnt sound strange thus far, I dont see the need of posting your excercise
though, but do whatever you like if you think it helps in explaining something.
Jasper
Edward Schaefer
Here is the promised posting on the twin "paradox".
---------------------------------------------------------
To solve this "paradox", let's first set the stage with two twins.
One stays on the Earth while the other goes off towards the Alpha
Centauri @ .866c, gets there after 5 years (Earth time), and then
turns around and comes back @ .866c. The traveling twin finally
returns after 10 years (Earth time) but due to time dilation has aged
only 5 years. [sqrt (1 - [.866c]^2/c^2) = 1/2 is why I chose v =
.866c to begin with.]
I have just described things from the standpoint of the stay-at-home
twin. Note that the space and time covered by the spaceship twin is
the same in both the outbound and inbound legs. It is commonly
assumed that the distance covered by the stay-at-home twin wrt the
spaceship twin is therefore also the same in both the outbound and
inbound legs of the trip. This is not the case. In order to come
back, the spaceship twin had to accelerate and move himself from one
inertial frame-of-reference to another. In the process, the
position of the stay-at-home twin got pushed away in space and back
in time. As a result, the spaceship twin observed the stay-at-home
twin to cover 20 years of time, with his clock ticking at half-speed
all the while.
So let's do some math.
At turnaround, the spaceship twin has been outbound for 2.5
years by his clock. He looks back, and sees the stay-at-home
twin as he was at time t_o, where
t_o = t_n / (1 + v/c)
and t_n is the current time for the spaceship twin (2.5 yr.)
Therefore t_o = 2.5 / (1 + 0.866) = 1.34yr; and at that time the
stay-at-home twin was 1.16 light-years away in the frame-of-reference
of the spaceship twin.
Now the spaceship twin fires his engines to change his relative
motion from v = 0.866c to v = -0.866c in the frame-of-reference
of the stay-at-home twin. The relativistic addition of velocities
states that his total change-of-velocity in the frame-of-reference
of the outbound leg is -0.990c. So we will now use the Lorentz
Transformations to determine the spaceship twin's view of spacetime
at turnaround in the frame of reference of the inbound leg of the
trip. In this case, the origin of coordinates is placed at
turnaround (so t = t_o - 2.5 = -1.16).
x' = (x - vt) / sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)
= {-1.16 ly - [(-.990 ly/y) * (-1.16 y)]} / sqrt (1 - 0.99^2)
= -16.16 ly
t' = -16.16 y
This is merely a coordinate shift caused by the spaceship twin
changing frames of reference. Physically, the stay-at-home twin
is in the same place and the same time as before turnaround.
To get together again, the stay-at-home twin is observed to come
to the spaceship twin @ .866c from (x' = -16.16, t' = -16.16).
This takes 18.66 years, placing the event at t = 2.5 y in the
frame-of-reference of the traveling twin on the inbound leg,
which is EXACTLY what we want, and results in the spaceship
twin locally observing the passage of a total of 5 years of time.
(Remember: t=0 is at turnaround in this frame-of-reference.)
At the same time, the stay-at-home twin was observed to cover
1.34 + 18.66 = 20 years of coordinate time in the frames of reference
of the spaceship twin, with his clock ticking at half-time all the
while. Therefore the spaceship twin observed the stay-at-home twin
to age 10 years.
End of "paradox".
EMS
Edward Schaefer
>
> One of the problems I have with SR is:
> Where does the reference frame come from?
From an observer being in it. (Yes. This is circular, but it sets the
stage for the answer to your next question, which is a very good one.)
> Why/how does SR make this reference frame an absolute one and
> not a reference frame that moves with a velocity as [seen from?]
> the reference for example?
Now I see your complaint. The FIRST postulate of Special Relativity is
that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference. So your are right that the reference frame cannot be a
special case. The only thing that makes it special is that this is the
frame from which an initial set of observations are being made.
A second inertial observer in motion wrt the first can observe the same
events and describe them him/herself. That second observer need not
agree with the first one on the times and distances between events.
However, it is expected that the relationship between those observations
will be described by a set of rules called the Lorentz Transformations.
The observers can switch roles without problems. If observer 1 is
treated as being at rest and observer 2 is moving with a velocity of v,
then it is perfectly proper and reasonable to chose the treat observer 2
as being a rest (as he is in his own frame of reference), and observer 1
as moving with a velocity of -v.
> How can I have an absolute reference frame in my system where we
> have only two observers?
At this point, I hope that it is obvious that there are no special
frames in Relativity. The first observer is priviliged only because he
is the first one whose observations are being used. It's a little like
being in line for theater tickets. The first in line is priviliged only
because he was the first one there, and therefore has the whole of the
theater to pick a seat from.
In any case, feel free to ask more questions.
EMS
Jasper....@sci.kun.nl
Edward Schaefer <scha...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:39450D7...@mitre.org...
> Jasper Hendriks wrote:
> >
> > One of the problems I have with SR is:
> > Where does the reference frame come from?
>
> stage for the answer to your next question, which is a very good one.)
>
> > the reference for example?
>
> Now I see your complaint. The FIRST postulate of Special Relativity is
> that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
> reference. So your are right that the reference frame cannot be a
> special case. The only thing that makes it special is that this is the
> frame from which an initial set of observations are being made.
>
> A second inertial observer in motion wrt the first can observe the same
> events and describe them him/herself. That second observer need not
> agree with the first one on the times and distances between events.
> However, it is expected that the relationship between those observations
> will be described by a set of rules called the Lorentz Transformations.
>
> The observers can switch roles without problems. If observer 1 is
> treated as being at rest and observer 2 is moving with a velocity of v,
> then it is perfectly proper and reasonable to chose the treat observer 2
> as being a rest (as he is in his own frame of reference), and observer 1
> as moving with a velocity of -v.
>
> > have only two observers?
>
> frames in Relativity. The first observer is priviliged only because he
> is the first one whose observations are being used. It's a little like
> being in line for theater tickets. The first in line is priviliged only
> because he was the first one there, and therefore has the whole of the
> theater to pick a seat from.
>
> In any case, feel free to ask more questions.
>
> EMS
The Lorentz transformations are used to switch from one (Y) to another (X)
observer and can only be used when we initially look at one (Y) observer,
correct me if I'm wrong.
When I make the X observer the initial one I get a different outcome when I
apply the lorentz transformations to switch to Y.
It seems to me you are not addressing my question properly or I just dont
see it.
Jasper....@sci.kun.nl
>
> The problem is that whoever wrote that web-page has no idea of what they
> are talking about. At the very least, he/she does not understand the
> twin paradox, and has only a hazy understanding of GR, which in a case
> like this is worse than useless.
>
> For example:
>
> "This circularity in the definition of inertia, ... As Einstein said:
>
> "'The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, ...
> a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far
> from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from
> other bodies only by the fact that it moves without
> acceleration.'"
>
> This was resolved by Einstein in 1907. Inertial motion occurs when an
> object is not being subject to any forces, such as having the floor
> pushing up on you. In other words, free-fall is inertial motion in
> Relativity; and therefore (for example) the planets are all moving
> without locally perceived acceleration. This is not to say that there
> is not acceleration as perceived from other locations, but this drags us
> into GR, and that is not appropriate.
Wasnt this resolved because of GR?
>
> The mention of GR brings us to another statement in that page:
>
> "The question of whether general relativity is required to resolve the
> twins paradox has long been a subject of lively debate."
>
> That is a debate that long ago was resolved. SR is all that is needed,
> and the realization that one twin travels in two inertial frames instead
> of just one as the "stay at home" twin does. The power of Relativity
> comes out when you switch frames of reference and use the Lorentz
> Transformations. Otherwise it is silly.
One of the problems I have with SR is:
Where does the reference frame come from?
Why/how does SR make this reference frame an absolute one and not a
reference frame that moves with a velocity as the reference for example?
How can I have an absolute reference frame in my system where we have only
two observers?
Please make any explainations in relation to the system discussed so far.
> I have an exercise that shows how the travelling twin sees the
> stay-at-home twin age more even though the stay-at-home twin's clock is
> slowed down throughout the trip from the viewpoint of the traveling
> twin. The text is on my work computer, and I will post it later. The
> key is that an acceleration changes one view of space and time, and the
> coordinate time for the stay-at-home twin is decreased when the
> traveling twin accelerated back towards him by just the right amount to
> see the stay-at-home twin age more by the right amount.
>
> Yes. I know this is sounds strange. Just trust me that you need to see
> the exercise before commenting.
>
> EMS
It doesnt sound strange thus far, it all makes sense. I dont see the need of
Jasper....@sci.kun.nl
> > > treated as being at rest and observer 2 is moving with a velocity
> > > of v, then it is perfectly proper and reasonable to chose the treat
> > > observer 2 as being a rest (as he is in his own frame of
> > > reference), and observer 1 as moving with a velocity of -v.
> >
> > another (X) observer
>
>
> > and can only be used when we initially
> > look at one (Y) observer, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> that we need some observations to start with. (Otherwise the Lorentz
> Transformations have no input.)
>
> > When I make the X observer the initial one I get a different outcome
> > when I apply the lorentz transformations to switch to Y.
>
> a "different outcome" is really a different view of the same situation.
> An example of that is the Twin "Paradox" resolution with the coordinates
> of the stay-at-home twin being modified at turnaround in the traveling
> twin's view due to his/her changing frames of reference at turnaround.
>
I recommend you reading the FAQ: the twin paradox introduction and the
doppler shift explanation.
Till then if you still dont see my point please dont bother to post again.
Edward Schaefer
>
> Edward Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > Jasper....@sci.kun.nl wrote:
> > >
> > > Edward Schaefer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > treated as being at rest and observer 2 is moving with a velocity
> > > > of v, then it is perfectly proper and reasonable to chose the treat
> > > > observer 2 as being a rest (as he is in his own frame of
> > > > reference), and observer 1 as moving with a velocity of -v.
> > >
> > > The Lorentz transformations are used to switch from one (Y) to
> > > another (X) observer
> >
> > This is good.
> >
> > > and can only be used when we initially
> > > look at one (Y) observer, correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > I don't see the need for this part. Perhaps all that you are saying is
> > that we need some observations to start with. (Otherwise the Lorentz
> > Transformations have no input.)
> >
> > > When I make the X observer the initial one I get a different outcome
> > > when I apply the lorentz transformations to switch to Y.
> >
> > Can you show me an example? My suspiscion is that what you are calling
> > a "different outcome" is really a different view of the same situation.
> > An example of that is the Twin "Paradox" resolution with the coordinates
> > of the stay-at-home twin being modified at turnaround in the traveling
> > twin's view due to his/her changing frames of reference at turnaround.
> >
>
> I recommend you reading the FAQ: the twin paradox introduction and the
> doppler shift explanation.
All that I see there is stuff that I am used to.
> Till then if you still dont see my point please dont bother to post again.
What is your point? That Relativity should apply to both just the
same? It does, but that does not mean what you think it does.
Terrence stays in a single inertial frame.
Stella does half of her trip in one inertial frame and the other half in
another.
The two cases are not and cannot be the same.
If that does not address your concern, then please state in your own
words what it is. I'm a physicist after all, not a mind reader.
I know that you are frustrated, but if you want to end up with real
answers you need to be patient and persistent. We are still learing
each other's languages and paradigms. You feel like someone with a
scientific mind of your own, but that is not enough for us to be
communicating all at once.
It will take several more cycles before we start dealing with the real
barriers to your understanding Relativity as it is. I do not expect you
at this point to go "Oh wow! This must be right!"; nor should you
expect me to see what you think is obviously wrong about it.
EMS
Paul Lutus
mind.
Perfect summary of your mental state. When you've made up your mind, that is
a reason to stop posting.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
<Jasper....@sci.kun.nl> wrote in message
news:8i26dl$qpu$1...@dinkel.civ.utwente.nl...
<snip>
Edward Schaefer
>
> Well you do see the obvious which is if we look on accelerations
> as being relative we run into trouble?
As I noted before, 4-accelerations are relative. That does not cause
trouble. In fact, it resolves some subtle problems in Relativity
theory.
> So acceleration is supposed to be absolute in SR.
The *local experience* of acceleration is an absolute, just as the local
experience of time is. A simple watch cannot tick at two rates at
once. Neither can a simple scale read two weights at once. That is all
that is being said there.
> And I dont agree with the way acceleration is dealt with and the
> a_priori identifiability of inertial worldlines used in SR.
It is in accord with experience and observation. I do not see the
issue. BTW - You are NOT in an inertial frame as you read this, but are
under the Equivalance Principle of GR are being accelerated upwards.
Only free-fall is truly inertial motion.
> When I push against anything I know I push it away independent of
> its mass.
F = ma. Yes. You can push it away, but how fast do you get it going
from a given push? A wooden toy train is alot easier to push down the
tracks than a fully loaded 100-car train. Indeed, if you were on a
handcar as you started trying to pugh the train, you would find that
your push did more to move the handcar (relative to the tracks) than to
accelerate the train.
However, this is just Newtonian physics. Is this the issue (in which
case you should go to sci.physics), or are you driving at something
more?
EMS
Jasper....@sci.kun.nl
> Jasper....@sci.kun.nl wrote:
> >
> > Edward Schaefer wrote:
> > >
> > > Jasper....@sci.kun.nl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Edward Schaefer wrote:
> > > > >
Well you do see the obvious which is if we look on accelerations as being
relative we run into trouble?
I assume you do from the fact you're a physicist.
So acceleration is supposed to be absolute in SR.
And I dont agree with the way acceleration is dealt with and the a_priori
identifiability of inertial worldlines used in SR.
When I push against anything I know I push it away independent of its mass.
Jasper Hendriks
> Jasper....@sci.kun.nl wrote:
> >
> > Well you do see the obvious which is if we look on accelerations
> > as being relative we run into trouble?
>
> trouble. In fact, it resolves some subtle problems in Relativity
> theory.
>
>
> experience of time is. A simple watch cannot tick at two rates at
> once. Neither can a simple scale read two weights at once. That is all
> that is being said there.
>
> > a_priori identifiability of inertial worldlines used in SR.
>
> issue. BTW - You are NOT in an inertial frame as you read this, but are
> under the Equivalance Principle of GR are being accelerated upwards.
> Only free-fall is truly inertial motion.
>
> > its mass.
>
> from a given push? A wooden toy train is alot easier to push down the
> tracks than a fully loaded 100-car train. Indeed, if you were on a
> handcar as you started trying to pugh the train, you would find that
> your push did more to move the handcar (relative to the tracks) than to
> accelerate the train.
>
> However, this is just Newtonian physics. Is this the issue (in which
> case you should go to sci.physics), or are you driving at something
> more?
>
> EMS
Yes this is the issue, let's make an example of this to illustrate my
problem:
A system consists of 2 bodies X and Y. Y is earth and X is me.
Suppose my velocity is instance 0.99 c as viewed from Y. Just before this
instance my clock was set equal to that of Y. How can I determine after this
instance thus without knowing which one did the acceleration, which body to
take for a reference or doesnt this matter?
Edward Schaefer
>
> A system consists of 2 bodies X and Y. Y is earth and X is me.
> Suppose my velocity is instance 0.99 c as viewed from Y. Just
> before this instance my clock was set equal to that of Y. How
> can I determine after this instance thus without knowing which
> one did the acceleration, which body to take for a reference
> or doesnt this matter?
I doesn't matter. Either can be the reference. Indeed, you can choose
a 3rd frame in motion wrt both X and Y as the reference, although that
usually unnecessarily complicates things.
All that matters is that the reference frame be inertial.
I posted an article called "Which clock is slower?" recently. (I have
the deja.com link at home, and will post it later.) In it, I was
examining how two observers who pass each other at high speeds have
reciporacol views of each other. Which one accelerated to create the
motion was irrelevant (although I did specify one as going out and then
accelerating again so that they would pass at the desired speed). Only
the relative speed of the observers matters.
EMS
Jasper Hendriks
So if it doesnt matter can you explain this to me? I'm sure you can see my
problem that hasn't been solved yet.
How can I decide what reference frame is inertial? are you saying being
inertial is something absolute?
Edward Schaefer
>
> I posted an article called "Which clock is slower?" recently.
deja.com was down when I posted this, but is up now. So I found the
link. It is http://x56.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=600706996
(which Netscape may truncate on you).
Look it over, and tell me what you think.
EMS
Edward Schaefer
>
> So if it doesnt matter can you explain this to me? I'm sure you can see my
> problem that hasn't been solved yet.
> How can I decide what reference frame is inertial? are you saying being
> inertial is something absolute?
Being inertial means not being accelerated. Alone, that is a circular
definition, as that web-page you cite astutely noted.
So let's assume that being intertial is an absolute state. How would
you perceive it if you were not in intertial motion? You would perceive
it by inertially moving objects accelerating in a direction opposite the
one that you are being accelerated in. So the next question is what
causes an acceleration? The answer is a push (or pull) of some sort.
So, in an inertial frame, you can take a coin, place it at rest in front
of your nose, let go of it, and have it stay there.
Now try it and see what happens. Then try standing on a chain and
letting go of the coin as you jump off of the chain. (Go ahead. Try
it.)
The first trial had the coin immediately fall away from your nose. The
second one had it stay by your nose until you hit the floor. So
free-fall is inertial motion. That is something that Einstein
identified in 1907, and for the reasons that you are mentioning.
So the surface of the Earth is NOT an inretial frame-of-reference. The
next question is usually "doesn't this moot the experimental evidence
for Relativity"? The answer is no. The deviation from inertial
situtaion is given by sqrt(1 - gd/c^2), where d is the distance scale in
question. Even for a distance of a kilometer, the deviation amounts to
less than a part in a trillion (USA), or 10^12. (This is a billion in
British semantics, which you may be using instead.) So the surface of
the Earth is close enough to being inertial that high-speed results (>
0.01c) are not affected significantly by the gravitational acceleration
near its surface.
EMS
Sid Lanier
"Jasper Hendriks" <REMOVE_mijJa...@sci.kun.nl> wrote in message
news:8i5lsd$bb7$1...@wnnews.sci.kun.nl...
>
> Edward Schaefer <scha...@mitre.org> wrote in message
> news:394656DC...@mitre.org...
> > Jasper Hendriks wrote:
> > >
> > > A system consists of 2 bodies X and Y. Y is earth and X is me.
> > > Suppose my velocity is instance 0.99 c as viewed from Y. Just
> > > before this instance my clock was set equal to that of Y. How
> > > can I determine after this instance thus without knowing which
> > > one did the acceleration, which body to take for a reference
> > > or doesnt this matter?
> >
> > I doesn't matter. Either can be the reference. Indeed, you can choose
> > a 3rd frame in motion wrt both X and Y as the reference, although that
> > usually unnecessarily complicates things.
> >
> > All that matters is that the reference frame be inertial.
> >
> > I posted an article called "Which clock is slower?" recently. (I have
> > the deja.com link at home, and will post it later.) In it, I was
> > examining how two observers who pass each other at high speeds have
> > reciporacol views of each other. Which one accelerated to create the
> > motion was irrelevant (although I did specify one as going out and then
> > accelerating again so that they would pass at the desired speed). Only
> > the relative speed of the observers matters.
> >
> > EMS
>
> problem that hasn't been solved yet.
> How can I decide what reference frame is inertial? are you saying being
> inertial is something absolute?
I have been watching this, and I find the most interesting part to be Nathan
Urban's patience. A real gentleman there! But, I was wondering: Assume X and
Y are identical twins, i.e., equal mass and everything. Now, X decides to
push off from Y. So, X has to expend some internal energy to do that. All Y
does is exert an equal and opposite force in accordance with Newton. Does
this mean that all the energy for the accelerations came from X alone, and
that now Y is more massive. After all, Y was perfectly happy sitting there.
It was X that created the disturbance and expended the energy to do the
pushing.
If that is correct, then they are no longer twins.
Sid L.
alan
> Thanks but I'd prefer now to let this thread die because I've made up my
> mind.
Then don't reply to posts.
alan
> Yes this is the issue, let's make an example of this to illustrate my
> problem:
> A system consists of 2 bodies X and Y. Y is earth and X is me.
> Suppose my velocity is instance 0.99 c as viewed from Y. Just before this
> instance my clock was set equal to that of Y. How can I determine after this
> instance thus without knowing which one did the acceleration, which body to
> take for a reference or doesnt this matter?
From your way of looking at things, there are TWO accelerations in the twin
paradox.
1) X pushes off, X and Y accelerate from each other. Over time, X and Y
separate.
2) X must accelerate again, in order for X and Y to arrive at the same spot
again.
2a) If he does this by pulling on Y (geez, he must have long arms!) the
situation is still symmetric, there will be no clock differentiation, Y will
feel the same force as X (in the opposite direction).
2b) If X accelerates by pushing/pulling on something else, the clocks will
differentiate. An asymmetry has been introduced. This one is the one talked
about in the twin paradox.
Jasper....@sci.kun.nl
> you truly understood what SR says, you wouldn't be asking these questions?
And you wouldnt care to explain it, thats why discussions come up, because
we dont agree about something.
So who is teaching who?
Eniac
SR deals with (mainly) time-dialation and also led to the
discovery of light being bent by large gravitational bodies
which was predicted by Einstein before it was even
witnessed.
GR deals with gravitational forces which led to the
equivalence principle; The laws of nature in an accelerating
frame are equivalent to the laws in a gravitational field.
Which just means; if (x) fired its rockets enough to acheive
an acceleration of 1g (9.81M/sec/sec), then that same force
could be experienced by free-falling through Earths
atmosphere.
You are right on one thing; the twins paradox is derived
from SR, but you'll find it's best understood if you get
into time-dialation. In this case (paradox), you have to
look at breaking the light barrier and travelling back
through time.
It looks to me like you're trying to assimilate the twins
paradox with the equivalence principle...it just will not
happen...ever.
Regards,
Eniac.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Paul Lutus
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
<Jasper....@sci.kun.nl> wrote in message
news:8i5ves$ov$1...@dinkel.civ.utwente.nl...
Jasper....@sci.kun.nl
Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
news:e1x15.209790$VR.32...@news5.giganews.com...
> You are confusing agreement with basic comprehension.
>
Ah ok :-)
David Evens
Eniac wrote:
>
> Hello and salutations. I think you're confusing SR with GR.
> SR deals with (mainly) time-dialation and also led to the
> discovery of light being bent by large gravitational bodies
> which was predicted by Einstein before it was even
> witnessed.
Ah, yes, you made a grammatical mistake: You confused first person
singular and second person plural. It is GR, not SR, which predicts
GRAVITATIONAL effects. You seem to be confusing them.
> GR deals with gravitational forces which led to the
> equivalence principle; The laws of nature in an accelerating
> frame are equivalent to the laws in a gravitational field.
> Which just means; if (x) fired its rockets enough to acheive
> an acceleration of 1g (9.81M/sec/sec), then that same force
> could be experienced by free-falling through Earths
> atmosphere.
Backwards AGAIN! The force in the Earth's SURFACE is equal to the force
experienced in the accelerating rocket!
> You are right on one thing; the twins paradox is derived
> from SR, but you'll find it's best understood if you get
> into time-dialation. In this case (paradox), you have to
> look at breaking the light barrier and travelling back
> through time.
Why would you have to do that? It never comes up in the scenario.
Eniac
gave rise to the gravitational effects on light, I was
tired, that's my only excuse. However, your proposition
about the equivalence principle is absolutely incorrect. The
thing here is that it is called the EQUIVALENCE principle
(vice versa), pretty straight forward one "should" find.
Lastly, if you truely understood the paradox itself, then
you wouldn't have questioned my statement. Look into it
sometime...I mean; "look" into it, don't listen to someone,
just do some research for yourself.
'till next "time".
GLOBARR
Edward Schaefer <scha...@mitre.org> wrote:
Ref: <8i09ce$1qp$1...@dinkel.civ.utwente.nl>
<8i0tdk$9nc$1...@dinkel.civ.utwente.nl>
<8i0ucc$6a5$1...@crib.corepower.com>
>
<8i26dl$qpu$1...@dinkel.civ.utwente.nl>
<3944E5BC...@erols.com>
Dear Jasper,
Here is the promised posting on the twin "paradox".
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
I did not see the ether's explanation included! How come?
It is correct. Just as correct as your SR `explanation.' And
it has no problems with being understood. Why did you leave it
out? Do you not understand it??????
Edward Schaefer continues (with only the SR explanation):
To solve this "paradox", let's first set the stage with two
twins. One stays on the Earth while the other goes off towards
the Alpha Centauri @ .866c, gets there after 5 years (Earth
time), and then turns around and comes back @ .866c. The
traveling twin finally returns after 10 years (Earth time) but
due to time dilation has aged only 5 years. [sqrt (1 -
[.866c]^2/c^2) = 1/2 is why I chose v = .866c to begin with.]
I have just described things from the standpoint of the
stay-at-home twin. Note that the space and time covered by the
spaceship twin is the same in both the outbound and inbound
legs. It is commonly assumed that the distance covered by the
stay-at-home twin wrt thespaceship twin is therefore also the
same in both the outbound and inbound legs of the trip. This
is not the case.
O'Barr comments:
This seems to be a strange remark? How would Carr handle
such a point? It surely cannot be true!!!!
Edward Schaefer continues:
In order to come back, the spaceship twin had
to accelerate and move himself from one inertial frame-of-
reference to another. In the process, the position of the
stay-at-home twin got pushed away in space and back in time.
O'Barr comments:
And who did the pushing? With what force? Did the stay at
home twin feel this push? It sounds like you believe in
Voodoo!!! Especially when you said that a back-in-time jump
took place!!! What did this jump-in-time do to trees that were
growing during this jump?
Actually, the travelling twin has to accelerate three times,
at the beginning, the turn-around point, and at the end! At
each of these times, there was a change in frame. But you only
paid attention to one! And what physical law in SR governs or
controls these jumps-in-times??????? I understand the math.
But what controls the physics?????
Edward Schaefer continues:
As a result, the spaceship twin observed the stay-at-home
twin to cover 20 years of time, with his clock ticking at half-
speed all the while.
O'Barr comments:
Whose clock was ticking at half-speed? I thought they both
saw the other's clock run at half speed??????? In fact,
according to SR, they each have to see the other moving at the
same rate (same velocity), with clocks moving at the same slow
rate as the other, etc. Otherwise, it isn't SR!!!!!!!!!
Edward Schaefer continues:
So let's do some math.
At turnaround, the spaceship twin has been outbound for 2.5
years by his clock. He looks back, and sees the stay-at-home
twin as he was at time t_o, where
t_o = t_n / (1 + v/c)
and t_n is the current time for the spaceship twin (2.5 yr.)
Therefore t_o = 2.5 / (1 + 0.866) = 1.34yr; and at that time
the stay-at-home twin was 1.16 light-years away in the frame-
of-reference of the spaceship twin.
Now the spaceship twin fires his engines to change his relative
motion from v = 0.866c to v = -0.866c in the frame-of-reference
of the stay-at-home twin. The relativistic addition of
velocities states that his total change-of-velocity in the
frame-of-reference of the outbound leg is -0.990c. So we will
now use the Lorentz Transformations to determine the spaceship
twin's view of spacetime at turnaround in the frame of
reference of the inbound leg of the trip. In this case, the
origin of coordinates is placed at turnaround (so t = t_o - 2.5
= -1.16).
x' = (x - vt) / sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)
= {-1.16 ly - [(-.99 ly/y) * (-1.16 y)]} / sqrt (1 - 0.99^2)
= -16.16 ly
t' = -16.16 y
This is merely a coordinate shift caused by the spaceship twin
changing frames of reference. Physically, the stay-at-home
twin is in the same place and the same time as before
turnaround.
O'Barr comments:
Can you prove this? That this is only a coordinate shift,
etc.! The SR I know says that the coordinates of one frame are
just as valid as any other frame. That the facts as measured
in one frame are just as real and just as correct as the facts
in any other frame. So if you say that the traveling twin
measures anything, that had to be real, didn't it? So is the
stay-at-home twin really unmoved in space or time or isn't
it???? All I can say, is, you believe in Voodoo, but as you
get to saying what you believe, even you want to back away!!!!
What a sorry way to believe!!!!!!!
Edward Schaefer continues:
To get together again, the stay-at-home twin is observed to
come to the spaceship twin @ .866c from (x' = -16.16, t' = -
16.16). This takes 18.66 years, placing the event at t = 2.5 y
in the frame-of-reference of the traveling twin on the inbound
leg, which is EXACTLY what we want, and results in the
spaceship twin locally observing the passage of a total of 5
years of time. (Remember: t=0 is at turnaround in this frame-
of-reference.)
At the same time, the stay-at-home twin was observed to cover
1.34 + 18.66 = 20 years of coordinate time in the frames of
reference of the spaceship twin, with his clock ticking at
half-time all the while. Therefore the spaceship twin observed
the stay-at-home twin to age 10 years.
End of "paradox".
O'Barr comments:
This should really be the end of SR! Such Voodoo! Just for
once, I would like to see a real explanation be given. How
come no one wants to do it the right way????? I dare you to
do it the ether way, and compare it. To start out, just assume
that the earth was at rest in the ether, and see what you get!
Wouldn't that be interesting????????
Or even more interesting, put a tree growing in each frame,
that grows 1 foot for each year, and keep track of the growth
of this tree for each observation. Now this would produce good
physics. I dare you to do this! I dare you to be honest, and
see the differences in the SR approach and the ether approach!
And do you need to clear up your math? For one simple
example, in your own words, the spaceship twin will have 2.5
years on his clock at his turn around time. He has to know
this!!!! During these 2.5 years, he did see and measure the
earth to be moving away from him at 0.866c. Thus, his own
measurements would have to show the earth to be at a distance
of 2.165 ly at the time he turns around, or else he did not see
the correct velocity, or the correct time on his own clock.
(Didn't your math said it was 1.16 ly? What did I miss?)
Better luck next time!!!!!!
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!
Edward Schaefer
>
> Edward Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Dear Jasper,
> > Here is the promised posting on the twin "paradox".
>
Because I am explaining SR, not LET.
> > ...
> >
> > [The change in the observed location of the stay-at-home twin
> > after the turnaround] is merely a coordinate shift caused by
> > the spaceship twin changing frames of reference. Physically,
> > the stay-at-home twin is in the same place and the same time
> > as before.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Can you prove this? That this is only a coordinate shift,
> etc.! The SR I know says that the coordinates of one frame are
> just as valid as any other frame.
Correct.
> That the facts as measured
> in one frame are just as real and just as correct as the facts
> in any other frame.
Correct.
> So if you say that the traveling twin
> measures anything, that had to be real, didn't it?
You are using "real" in the context of "absolute". The events are
absolutes. Their coordinates are not.
> So is the stay-at-home twin really unmoved in space or time
> or isn't it????
See the above.
> And do you need to clear up your math? For one simple
> example, in your own words, the spaceship twin will have 2.5
> years on his clock at his turn around time. He has to know
> this!!!! During these 2.5 years, he did see and measure the
> earth to be moving away from him at 0.866c. Thus, his own
> measurements would have to show the earth to be at a distance
> of 2.165 ly at the time he turns around, or else he did not see
> the correct velocity, or the correct time on his own clock.
> (Didn't your math said it was 1.16 ly? What did I miss?)
At the *time* of turnaround in the outbound *frame-of-reference*, your
statement that the Earth was a 2.165 ly is correct. Note that if
turnaround is at t=0, then the coordinate of the Earth is (0, -2.165
ly). However, that light is NOT the light seen by the travelling twin
at turnaround. The light seen was emitted at (-1.16y, -1.16ly) in the
outbound frame with the origin of coordinates at turnaround, and that is
what is important.
EMS
GLOBARR
Edward Schaefer <em...@erols.com> wrote:
Ref: <3944FE1A...@mitre.org>
<20000614225708...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>
> Edward Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Dear Jasper,
> > Here is the promised posting on the twin "paradox".
>
> I did not see the ether's explanation included! How come?
Schaefer wrote:
Because I am explaining SR, not LET.
O'Barr comments:
Of course we can see you doing this. It is obvious that you
are only explaining SR, and not LET. Therefore, the question
remains unanswered! Why are you only explaining SR, and not
also LET? LET is just as scientific as SR. It is actually
based on simpler physics. The physics of LET is actually
`doable,' and the physics of SR is physically impossible. So
why would a scientific person not include the explanation that
made sense? It really is unscientific not to offer the best
solution. Even if the best solution might require more
difficult math!!!
Schaefer wrote: ...
> > [The change in the observed location of the stay-at-home
> > twin after the turnaround] is merely a coordinate shift
> > caused by the spaceship twin changing frames of reference.
> > Physically,the stay-at-home twin is in the same place and
> > the same time as before.
O'Barr wrote:
> Can you prove this? That this is only a coordinate shift,
> etc.! The SR I know says that the coordinates of one frame
> are just as valid as any other frame.
Schaefer wrote:
Correct.
O'Barr wrote:
> That the facts as measured
> in one frame are just as real and just as correct as the facts
> in any other frame.
Schaefer wrote:
Correct.
O'Barr wrote:
> So if you say that the traveling twin
> measures anything, that had to be real, didn't it?
Schaefer wrote:
You are using "real" in the context of "absolute". The events
are absolutes. Their coordinates are not.
O'Barr comments:
Then all of your 'correct' answers above were lies?
I am sure that we can all agree that certain events are real.
But in terms of your SR, then in which coordinate frame are
these events correctly described? And what decides what is
correct? Can the description in all SR frames be physically
possible? If not, then one frame must be better than another
frame. And this would violate you very assumptions!!!!!!!
In one of your SR frame, you have things occurring that are
not physically possible. And you do not give specific physical
explanations. You do give a general `excuse.' Oh! It is just
a change in coordinates! So if it is just a change in
coordinates, then what really did happen?????? If it is only a
change in coordinates, then why is the change in coordinates
exactly correct, and yet not real? Why can you not physically
explain exactly what this change really was????
The ether has no troubles in doing all these things. How
come SR cannot do even the simple things that the ether can do?
O'Barr wrote:
> So is the stay-at-home twin really unmoved in space or time
> or isn't it????
Schaefer wrote:
See the above.
O'Barr comments:
Yes, I know. You are afraid to say it again. It is so
silly!!! It is only a change in coordinates. But in SR, every
thing that is real is in the coordinates. What gives you the
right to say that a change in the coordinates is not real? How
can the change in coordinates in one frame be real, but not in
another? Do you not know how stupid you sound????
O'Barr wrote:
> And do you need to clear up your math? For one simple
> example, in your own words, the spaceship twin will have 2.5
> years on his clock at his turn around time. He has to know
> this!!!! During these 2.5 years, he did see and measure the
> earth to be moving away from him at 0.866c. Thus, his own
> measurements would have to show the earth to be at a distance
> of 2.165 ly at the time he turns around, or else he did not
> see the correct velocity, or the correct time on his own
> clock. (Didn't your math said it was 1.16 ly? What did I
> miss?)
Schaefer wrote:
At the *time* of turnaround in the outbound *frame-of-
reference*, your statement that the Earth was a 2.165 ly is
correct. Note that if turnaround is at t=0, then the coordinate
of the Earth is (0, -2.165 ly). However, that light is NOT the
light seen by the travelling twin at turnaround. The light seen
was emitted at (-1.16y, -1.16ly) in the outbound frame with the
origin of coordinates at turnaround, and that is what is
important.
O'Barr comments:
Thank you for acknowledging this correction.
But your statement that what is seen is what is important is
absolutely not true in SR! In the science of SR, the correct
procedures are to use the tools local to the event! Certainly,
we can understand what you say. But if you would do as I say,
and use trees, or the position of planets moving around a sun,
or any other real physical thing that changes with time, and use
SR correctly, you will see physically impossible things occur in
your approach! That is, you will see and measure jumps-in-time,
and other physically impossible things. Only the ether provides
us with the correct physical understanding of the twin paradox!
As well as the correct answers! Sorry about your mess! It is
sick!!!!!!! And you are sick if you teach it!!!!! And you are
being a dishonest scientist if you do not clearly show these
problems in your paradox as you present it! Shame on you!
In the ether approach, you never have to hide things. You
never have to be dishonest! Why don't you try it. You will
find it refreshing!!!!!!! It is refreshing to have definite and
physical and realistic answers to every problem. It is so clear
and understandable. And no more need to be so `kookie!'
Daryl McCullough
>Edward Schaefer <scha...@mitre.org> wrote:
> In order to come back, the spaceship twin had
>to accelerate and move himself from one inertial frame-of-
>reference to another. In the process, the position of the
>stay-at-home twin got pushed away in space and back in time.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> And who did the pushing? With what force?
Here's an analogy that might help you. Suppose that you are in
a car heading away from Omaha, Nebraska. Choose your coordinate
system so that the x-axis is straight ahead. When you are 100
kilometers away from Omaha, you suddenly pull a 180 degree turn,
so that you are heading *towards* Omaha. During the turn, the
x-coordinate of Omaha jumps from -100 km to +100 km. What force
caused the entire city of Omaha to jump?
The answer is *none*. A change of coordinates is not physical,
it is simply a change in the way you describe things. Performing
a sudden acceleration causes a discontinuous shift in the way
the world looks *to* *you*.
Now, in SR, the relevant "locations" are not simply points in
space---they are points in *spacetime* (also called "events").
A sudden acceleration changes both the spatial *and* the time
coordinates of an event.
So, in the twin paradox with one twin travelling out at .866 c
for 5 years (according to the stay-at-home twin), consider
the event "The earth-bound twin celebrates his 5th birthday
since the two twins separated." In the coordinate system
used by the travelling twin on his outbound trip, this
event has coordinates
x = -8.66 light-years
t = 10 years (7.5 years after turn-around)
Then, when the travelling twin turns around, the coordinates
jump, so that now the coordinates of this event are:
x = +8.66 light-years
t = -5 years (7.5 years *before* turn-around)
So, the turnaround causes the stay-at-home twin to
skip ahead in space 17.32 light-years, and to skip
ahead in time 15 years.
>Did the stay at home twin feel this push?
No. The "forces" that move the stay-at-home twin around
are "fictitious" forces due to the use noninertial
coordinate systems. In the same way, if you spin
yourself around and around, it will seem that there
is a centrifugal force flinging things outward and
a coriolis force. But the rest of the world doesn't
feel these forces (which is why they are called
"fictitious"). In GR, Einstein proposed that
gravity is a kind of fictitious force: a person
in freefall doesn't feel it.
>It sounds like you believe in Voodoo!!!
>Especially when you said that a back-in-time jump
>took place!!!
It's a jump in the *coordinates*, and coordinates
aren't physical. Things look weird in noninertial
coordinates.
>What did this jump-in-time do to trees that were
>growing during this jump?
> Actually, the travelling twin has to accelerate three times,
>at the beginning, the turn-around point, and at the end! At
>each of these times, there was a change in frame. But you only
>paid attention to one! And what physical law in SR governs or
>controls these jumps-in-times??????? I understand the math.
>But what controls the physics?????
To find out the laws of physics in a noninertial coordinate
system, just take the laws in an inertial coordinate system,
and perform a coordinate transformation. Simple enough.
>Edward Schaefer continues:
> As a result, the spaceship twin observed the stay-at-home
>twin to cover 20 years of time, with his clock ticking at half-
>speed all the while.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Whose clock was ticking at half-speed?
In the frame of the travelling twin, the stay-at-home twin's
clock ticks at half-speed. In the frame of the stay-at-home
twin, the travelling clock ticks at half speed. That's why
they call it "relativity".
>I thought they both saw the other's clock run at half speed???????
That's true.
Here's the sequence of events:
A = the twins depart
B = the Earth twin celebrates his 5th birthday since separating
C = the travelling twin turns around
D = the twins reunite
From the point of view of the stay-at-home twin,
the time between A and C is 5 years, and the
travelling twin ages 2.5 years. The time between
C and D is also 5 years, and the travelling
twin ages another 2.5 years. Events B and C
are simultaneous.
From the point of view of the travelling twin,
during turnaround, event B jumps from being
7.5 years in the future of event C to being
-7.5 years in the past of event C. In the
coordinate system of the return trip, the
elapsed time between event B and event D
is 10 years. During this time, the stay-at-home
twin ages only 5 years.
So, both twins view the other as aging at
half the speed, except the discontinuous
jump during turnaround.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Edward Schaefer
>
> I am sure that we can all agree that certain events are real.
> But in terms of your SR, then in which coordinate frame are
> these events correctly described?
All of them.
That is why it is called Relativity.
EMS
Wayne Throop
:: I am sure that we can all agree that certain events are real.
Don't be silly. In SR, ALL events are real.
:: But in terms of your SR, then in which coordinate frame are these
:: events correctly described?
: Edward Schaefer <em...@erols.com>
: All of them.
Exactly. Which, of course, is no different
than was the case in newtonian mechanics.
That GLOBARR, having participated in this newsgroup for years,
would be unaware of this simple fact boggles the mind.
Hence, hypotheses involving GLOBARR having hidden agendas
and motives for misdirection and deceit justifiably spring to mind.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
GLOBARR
<da...@cogentex.com> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
***** O'Barr special note: I do not often get the opportunity
to praise the post of an SR expert. But this post by Daryl is
a very special post! This is the first post, that I know of,
made by an SR expert, who has tried to explain the paradox of
the twins in a more correct way. He has tried to explain it in
a physical way. I hope that one of these days he will be kind
enough to explain it to everyone!!!!! *************
>Edward Schaefer <scha...@mitre.org> wrote:
> In order to come back, the spaceship twin had
>to accelerate and move himself from one inertial frame-of-
>reference to another. In the process, the position of the
>stay-at-home twin got pushed away in space and back in time.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> And who did the pushing? With what force?
McCullough wrote:
Here's an analogy that might help you.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Sorry, I do not believe I need any help. I am not the one
who said that something `got pushed'!
And if the best that you can do, is just offer an analogy,
who in the world would want that? All this shows is that in
SR you cannot tell us what really happened. All you can do is
just offer an analogy!!!! All you can do is offer a sick
analogy! Don't you get tired of all this junk! Just an
analogy???? Just an anology???? You are so sick!!!!!!!!!
McCullough wrote:
Suppose that you are in a car heading away from Omaha,
Nebraska. Choose your coordinate system so that the x-axis is
straight ahead. When you are 100 kilometers away from Omaha,
you suddenly pull a 180 degree turn, so that you are heading
*towards* Omaha. During the turn, the x-coordinate of Omaha
jumps from -100 km to +100 km. What force caused the entire
city of Omaha to jump?
O'Barr comments:
And this is what makes analogies so sick!!! I was a Boy
Scout! I know how to read maps! I know how to orientate
maps. Have you ever heard of a compass, or the North star?
And as a scout, I could turn myself about a hundred times, and
my map did not change the location of one single object! You
are so sick it is pitiful! You are not even a scout!!!!!
McCullough wrote:
The answer is *none*. A change of coordinates is not
physical, it is simply a change in the way you describe
things. Performing a sudden acceleration causes a
discontinuous shift in the way the world looks *to* *you*.
O'Barr comments:
(What a scary thing. You sound like an ether expert!)
Do you mean to say that there really is a real reality down
below all these coordinates and all these changes? If so,
then what coordinates do you use to describe these real
objects, and where are these real coordinates that can be
relied on to really tell us what really happens??!!! Now if
you begin to do these kinds of things, I think I would begin
to listen!!!!! So let us see you support your words! Let us
get down away from all these coordinate things, that you say
are not physical, and get to the physical! It is time we do
this!!!!!
McCullough wrote:
Now, in SR, the relevant "locations" are not simply points in
space---they are points in *spacetime* (also called "events").
A sudden acceleration changes both the spatial *and* the time
coordinates of an event.
O'Barr comments:
But you just explained that coordinates are not physical.
I do not want to talk about non-physical things! I do not
care about how things might just `look'!!!! I want to know
how things really are! You know, how they are physically. So
let us not consider all these non-physical things!
McCullough wrote:
So, in the twin paradox with one twin travelling out at .866 c
for 5 years (according to the stay-at-home twin), consider
the event "The earth-bound twin celebrates his 5th birthday
since the two twins separated." In the coordinate system
used by the travelling twin on his outbound trip, this
event has coordinates
x = -8.66 light-years
t = 10 years (7.5 years after turn-around)
O'Barr comments:
Can we assume that you are correct? These are not the
coordinates that were given by the last SR expert!!!!
What tells you that you are correct? SR has hundreds of
coordinates that you could have picked. Why did you pick this
one coordinate? What SR rule did you use???? (The ether
theory will support these coordinates. Wouldn't it have been
nice if I could say thanks for you saying so!!!!)
We should know that the previous coordinates that
were given were at a distance of -2.165 ly, not your -8.66,
and also -1.16 was also given, but we know where that came
from. If you are going to change all these facts and figures,
certainly you ought to mention it! Don't you SR experts work
together?
And so let the SR experts that are in the travelling
twin's frame take a picture of this event, where you say t=10
years. And in this picture, include a growing plant that has
been with this twin since they departed, and which grows 1
foot each year. What will this picture show? Will the
traveling twin know that something physically occurred at this
specific point, and at no other point??? Do you, as an SR
expert, know that something would be physically true at this
point??? And then as soon as the traveling twin turns around,
take the same picture again, and what do you see? And what
was real, and what was only a change in coordinates? And what
can we use to prove all this?????
And the question of question is, what does your FAQ show?
And what do your other SR books show??? And if they show
something different that what you are now showing, are they
all wrong????? Physically wrong??????
McCullough wrote:
Then, when the travelling twin turns around, the coordinates
jump, so that now the coordinates of this event are:
x = +8.66 light-years
t = -5 years (7.5 years *before* turn-around)
So, the turnaround causes the stay-at-home twin to
skip ahead in space 17.32 light-years, and to skip
ahead in time 15 years.
O'Barr comments:
Well, finally, an SR expert who knows something. Of
course, what we really know is that this could be very close
to what might really could happen. Any finite velocity in the
ether might make slight adjustments in some of these figures in
an absolute sense, but I am sure you are close! Thank you for
such a correct assessment! I like it much better that the
previous SR answer!!!!!!! Wouldn't it be nice if you would
explain why your answer is better! Wouldn't it be nice if we
could all understand the better way!!! Thank you, for at
least showing us that you have learned the better way!!!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
>Did the stay at home twin feel this push?
McCullough wrote:
No. The "forces" that move the stay-at-home twin around
are "fictitious" forces due to the use noninertial coordinate
systems. In the same way, if you spin yourself around and
around, it will seem that there is a centrifugal force flinging
things outward and a coriolis force. But the rest of the world
doesn't feel these forces (which is why they are called
"fictitious"). In GR, Einstein proposed that gravity is a kind
of fictitious force: a person in freefall doesn't feel it.
O'Barr comments:
It all depends on your frame of reference, doesn't it. In
certain frames, these are forces that must be assumed to be
there in order to get the correct answers! And thus in those
frames, the forces are real.
O'Barr wrote:
>It sounds like you believe in Voodoo!!!
>Especially when you said that a back-in-time jump
>took place!!!
McCullough wrote:
It's a jump in the *coordinates*, and coordinates
aren't physical. Things look weird in noninertial
coordinates.
O'Barr comments:
And you are so smart, to give the perfect ether answer,
where the jump was really just a jump in coordinates, and did
not include any real, physical jumps, which would of course be
physically impossible! Thank you again for doing this. One
day I hope you will be kind enough to explain to everyone why
and how you did what you did.
O'Barr wrote:
> What did this jump-in-time do to trees that were
> growing during this jump?
> Actually, the travelling twin has to accelerate three
> times, at the beginning, the turn-around point, and at the
> end! At each of these times, there was a change in frame.
> But you only paid attention to one! And what physical law
> in SR governs or controls these jumps-in-times??????? I
> understand the math. But what controls the physics?????
McCullough wrote:
To find out the laws of physics in a noninertial coordinate
system, just take the laws in an inertial coordinate system,
and perform a coordinate transformation. Simple enough.
O'Barr comments:
Come on, McCullough. If it is all so simple, then why did
Edward have it so messed up????? And why did no one else
complain that his way would not have been physically correct?
>Edward Schaefer wrote:
> As a result, the spaceship twin observed the stay-at-home
> twin to cover 20 years of time, with his clock ticking at
> half-speed all the while.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Whose clock was ticking at half-speed?
McCullough wrote:
In the frame of the travelling twin, the stay-at-home
twin's clock ticks at half-speed. In the frame of the stay-at-
home twin, the travelling clock ticks at half speed. That's
why they call it "relativity".
O'Barr wrote:
> I thought they both saw the other's clock run at half
> speed???????
McCullough wrote:
That's true. Here's the sequence of events:
A = the twins depart
B = the Earth twin celebrates his 5th birthday since
separating
C = the travelling twin turns around
D = the twins reunite
From the point of view of the stay-at-home twin, the time
between A and C is 5 years, and the travelling twin ages 2.5
years. The time between C and D is also 5 years, and the
travelling twin ages another 2.5 years. Events B and C are
simultaneous.
From the point of view of the travelling twin, during
turnaround, event B jumps from being 7.5 years in the future
of event C to being -7.5 years in the past of event C. In the
coordinate system of the return trip, the elapsed time between
event B and event D is 10 years. During this time, the stay-
at-home twin ages only 5 years.
So, both twins view the other as aging at half the speed,
except the discontinuous jump during turnaround.
O'Barr comments:
And now all we have to find out is what really happened.
We know what the coordinates did. Wouldn't it be nice to know
what physically happened!!!!!!!!! If we used your above
approach, we will have one twin existing in more than one
place at the same time. Now this is not physically possible,
and neither are the jumps-in-times. You have not physically
explained how all these things can really physically occur in
any kind of a consistent way. How come???? I believe you
could do this if you really tried.
GLOBARR
Schaefer wrote:
All of them.
That is why it is called Relativity.
O'Barr comments:
And that is why SR is so dump, and so impossible!
In SR, you have many coordinate descriptions that defy all
possibilities!!!! Physical things have limits in what they
can do, and in how they can perform. Since your coordinate
descriptions can do things differently than what physical
things can do, then you have a duty to explain such silliness.
Otherwise, you are no more than Voodoo!
Now in the ether, with the identical math and the
identical results, we never have any Voodoo! There is never,
at any time, any physical things done that are not simple,
direct, doable things! If the ether can do this, why can't
SR????? What is wrong with your theory, that you cannot
physically explain????????
And when will you be able to explain the paradox of the
twins correctly?????
GLOBARR
<thr...@sheol.org> (Wayne Throop) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
:: I am sure that we can all agree that certain events
:: are real.
Throop wrote:
Don't be silly. In SR, ALL events are real.
O'Barr comments:
`Real' like in they have certain specified SR coordinates,
or `real' like they physically occurred exactly as required by
those coordinates?
O'Barr wrote:
:: But in terms of your SR, then in which coordinate frame are
:: these events correctly described?
Edward Schaefer <em...@erols.com> wrote:
: All of them.
Throop wrote:
Exactly. Which, of course, is no different than was the
case in newtonian mechanics.
That GLOBARR, having participated in this newsgroup for
years, would be unaware of this simple fact boggles the mind.
Hence, hypotheses involving GLOBARR having hidden agendas
and motives for misdirection and deceit justifiably spring to
mind.
O'Barr comments:
My! What a mouth full! Has some unknown pressure been
building up a little????? SR is dead, and it is not because
of me. SR is dead because SR died! Don't blame me!
I have been on this net for several years. I have never
tried to use deceit. My home page has not changed one iota
for these several years (no change since July of 1997 if my
memory serves me correctly!)
And if I were you, Throop, who knows the ether approach
just as well as I do, you know better! Why this sudden
change? You could be leading the pack!!!!!!!! How did you
let McCullough get ahead of you???????
Better luck next time!!!!!
Edward Schaefer
>
> SR is dead
To paraphrase Mark Twain, your reports of SR's death are greatly
exagerated.
EMS
Wayne Throop
:::: I am sure that we can all agree that certain events are real.
:: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: Don't be silly. In SR, ALL events are real.
: glo...@aol.com (GLOBARR)
: `Real' like in they have certain specified SR coordinates, or `real'
: like they physically occurred exactly as required by those
: coordinates?
"Reality" has nothing to do with coordinates. Reality is what IS,
independent of any coordinates. Coordinates cannot "require" anyting at
all of reality. Coordinates are merely labels which humans have, by
some convention, decided to use to describe events. In SR, events are
the basic, fundamentally real things that the theory is all about (that,
plus the intervals between the events).
This is soooooo basic, that it is impossible that GLOBARR did not
already know it, so of course, I can only conclude that he's
playing some stupid game and trying to jerk his readers around
and deceive them.
Well, either that or my estimate of GLOBARR's competence
must be adjusted downwards by several orders of magnitude.
Which is sad, really, because my opinion of his competence
is already so frightfully low.
But I digress. So back to the point: "Real" like in, REAL.
No "coordinates" need apply.
:::: But in terms of your SR, then in which coordinate frame are
:::: these events correctly described?
::: Edward Schaefer <em...@erols.com>
::: All of them.
:: Exactly. Which, of course, is no different
:: than was the case in newtonian mechanics.
:: That GLOBARR, having participated in this newsgroup for years, would
:: be unaware of this simple fact boggles the mind. Hence, hypotheses
:: involving GLOBARR having hidden agendas and motives for misdirection
:: and deceit justifiably spring to mind.
: My! What a mouth full! Has some unknown pressure been building up a
: little?????
No, it's just that GLOBARR has finally said something so incredibly
stupid that it was remarkable, even for him. So I remarked upon it.
: SR is dead,
GLOBARR has a very perverted notion of what "dead" is.
SR is used in its domain of applicability every day, and in
just the same way that euclidean geometry and newtonian mechanics are
used every day in *their* domains of applicability.
To call this "dead" is... well, again, remarkably stupid.
: I have been on this net for several years. I have never tried to use
: deceit. My home page has not changed one iota for these several years
Your actions speak for themselves.
: And if I were you, Throop, who knows the ether approach just as well
: as I do, you know better!
That's correct. I know better than to say SR is "dead".
And so does GLOBARR; so I conclude he's doing it
to try to deceive his audience. Intentionaly. Maliciously.
And mostly unproductively.
Arlin Brown
Nathan writes about using an accelerometer to measure proper
acceleration.
Arlin Jean: Acceleration is also a function of the change in the REAL
One-Way Light Speed (OWLS). This is especially useful when the observer
is in a gravitational free fall where accelerometers fail. No particular
clock setting procedure is required to measure such changes, as long as
the observer's separated clocks are not re-set after measurements are
commenced.
---
Jeannie
GLOBARR
<thr...@sheol.org> (Wayne Throop) wrote:
:::: glo...@aol.com (GLOBARR) wrote:
:::: I am sure that we can all agree that certain events are
:::: real.
:: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
:: Don't be silly. In SR, ALL events are real.
: glo...@aol.com (GLOBARR)
: `Real' like in they have certain specified SR coordinates,
: or `real' like they physically occurred exactly as required
: by those coordinates?
Wayne Throop wrote:
"Reality" has nothing to do with coordinates. Reality is what
IS, independent of any coordinates. Coordinates cannot
"require" anything at all of reality. Coordinates are merely
labels which humans have, by some convention, decided to use
to describe events. In SR, events are the basic,
fundamentally real things that the theory is all about (that,
plus the intervals between the events).
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
You are now the second SR expert to tell us that there is a
reality separate from the coordinates. This is a big step,
and I believe a good one. At one time, there were statements
being made that the math of SR was our reality! It was all
that we could get, or have, or expect, or even allowed to be
considered! What a refreshing change!!!!!
Wayne Throop wrote:
This is soooooo basic, that it is impossible that GLOBARR
did not already know it, so of course, I can only conclude
that he's playing some stupid game and trying to jerk his
readers around and deceive them.
Well, either that or my estimate of GLOBARR's competence
must be adjusted downwards by several orders of magnitude.
Which is sad, really, because my opinion of his competence
is already so frightfully low.
But I digress. So back to the point: "Real" like in,
REAL. No "coordinates" need apply.
O'Barr comments:
All I can say is thanks!
O'Barr wrote:
:::: But in terms of your SR, then in which coordinate frame
:::: are these events correctly described?
::: Edward Schaefer <em...@erols.com>
::: All of them.
Throop wrote:
:: Exactly. Which, of course, is no different
:: than was the case in newtonian mechanics.
:: That GLOBARR, having participated in this newsgroup for
:: years, would be unaware of this simple fact boggles the
:: mind. Hence, hypotheses involving GLOBARR having hidden
:: agendas and motives for misdirection and deceit justifiably
:: spring to mind.
O'Barr wrote:
: My! What a mouth full! Has some unknown pressure been
: building up a little?????
Throop wrote:
No, it's just that GLOBARR has finally said something so
incredibly stupid that it was remarkable, even for him. So I
remarked upon it.
O'Barr wrote:
: SR is dead,
Throop wrote:
GLOBARR has a very perverted notion of what "dead" is.
SR is used in its domain of applicability every day, and in
just the same way that Euclidean geometry and Newtonian
Mechanics are used every day in *their* domains of
applicability.
To call this "dead" is... well, again, remarkably stupid.
O'Barr comments:
And I hope everyone who has read my postings know what I
mean. SR's philosophy is dead, not the math. The math of SR
is used every day, and is most perfect. The correct ether
theory actually explains SR math, so of course I do not and
could not say that SR math is dead. I am sorry that you were
not able to correctly remember the position being presented!
O'Barr wrote:
: I have been on this net for several years. I have never
: tried to use deceit. My home page has not changed one iota
: for these several years
Throop wrote:
Your actions speak for themselves.
O'Barr comments:
And what a blessing!!!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
: And if I were you, Throop, who knows the ether approach just
: as well as I do, you know better!
Throop wrote:
That's correct. I know better than to say SR is "dead".
And so does GLOBARR; so I conclude he's doing it to try to
deceive his audience. Intentionaly. Maliciously. And mostly
unproductively.
O'Barr comments:
It is easy to tell that I have failed you, Throop, on many
levels. For these failures on my part, I am truly sorry. But
I hope that on the scientific level, we can come together with
a stronger theory. And there is no reason why we cannot do
this!
Thanks!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to imporve the SR FAQ)
Wayne Throop
: You are now the second SR expert to tell us that there is a reality
: separate from the coordinates.
You can pretend all you want, but no "SR expert" has ever pretended otherwise.
Only GLOBARR has presented such an idiotic idea; trying to passit off
as somebody else's is just a fruitless attempt at erecting a straw man.
: This is a big step,
It can hardly be a "step". It has been true, and known and acknowledged
to be true, from day one. As I said, if GLOBARR was genuinely unaware
of this simple fact, he is a wonderment and a marvel.
: At one time, there were statements being made that the math of SR was
: our reality!
Shrug. So GLOBARR can't tell a metaphor or a philosophical
daydream from a precise statement of theory.
You can pretend all you want, GLOBARR.
But I doubt you'll fool too many people with this particular
pretense that there is some problem or ambiguity in SR's
notions of what is real and what is not. SR is not at all
heterodox on that point, and never was.
: It is easy to tell that I have failed you, Throop,
Yes, GLOBARR has failed to deceive me.
GLOBARR
<thr...@sheol.org> (Wayne Throop) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote: . . .
: You are now the second SR expert to tell us that there is
: a reality separate from the coordinates.
Throop wrote:
You can pretend all you want, but no "SR expert" has ever
pretended otherwise. . . .
O'Barr comments:
This idea, that you now accept so readily (along with one
other SR expert), that there really is a reality that exists
down below the coordinates, is exactly what is done in the
ether approach!!!!! In the ether approach, it is assumed that
there is such a real reality, and that it is necessary for us
to try to understand this reality, separate from the
coordinates. In the ether approach, we find that we can figure
out what this reality really is. We have found a way that is
internally consistent, and meets every test that can be
considered. We can now see how the real reality, matched with
the changes in the coordinate system, produces all of the
effects that are observed. Isn't that neat!!!!!
And I dare you, Throop, to take SR, and do likewise! Let
us see you, or any other SR expert, take these crazy and
impossible coordinate changes, and come up with a realistic,
*** physical, ***
*** and consistent, ***
and reasonable, and logical explanation, as to how all this is
physically accomplished! What a simple thing to ask for, and
yet I dare you to do it! The ether has been able to do this,
why can't you????????????????????????????
>
>
O'Barr wrote:
: It is easy to tell that I have failed you, Throop,
Throop wrote:
Yes, GLOBARR has failed to deceive me.
O'Barr comments:
It is so nice to know that I did not do what I never
intended to do! Thank you Throop, for helping me
to be successful! I need more of your help!!!!
Wayne Throop
: This idea, that you now accept so readily (along with one other SR
: expert), that there really is a reality that exists down below the
: coordinates, is exactly what is done in the ether approach!!!!!
First, GLOBARR continues to pretend there exist ANY "SR experts"
who think coordinates are required for things to be real.
Give it up GLOBARR. You aren't going to fool anybody with this one.
Second, GLOBARR pretends that the fact the ether approach happens
to share this property of SR is somehow a wonder, a marvel, and should
cause all and sundry to bow down and kowtow at the alter of GLOBARR's Ether.
Give it up GLOBARR. You aren't going to fool anybody with this one, either.
Yes. Agreed. Sure. "In the ether approach, reality exists
independently of its description". The map is not the teritory. The
word is not the item it names. But then, this is just one of MANY
things the ether approach and SR have in common; one of the myriad of
assumptions common to newtonian mechanics, maxwellian electrodynamics,
and unifications of the two. Pretending that this one somehow makes the
ether more plausible is just that; pretense.
: In the ether approach, we find that we can figure out what this
: reality really is.
No, in the ether approach, what we actually find is that
we can make an assumption about what this reality really is
which is compatible with the facts. A point that was never
in dispute; it's only GLOBARR who tries to elevate this into
a claim to have Discerned How Reality Really Works. But
just because GLOBARR says so doesn't make things so.
: We can now see how the real reality, matched with the changes in the
: coordinate system, produces all of the effects that are observed.
: Isn't that neat!!!!!
What we can see is what we've seen all along. GLOBARR has a prejudice
about what "the real reality" is. He's very adamant about his
prejudice. He's really, really, really sure of it. He likes to predict
that people who don't share his prejudice will someday be ridiculed, and
he likes to pretend people who don't share his prejudice are somehow
unreasonable or wrongheaded.
But none of that changes things.
It's still just GLOBARR's prejudice, and not
The Way Reality Really Is Handed Down On Stone Tablets (amen).
And no amount of predicting, pretending, gesticulating,
exclaimation-pointing, foaming at the mouth and in general
being very, very silly that GLOBARR can do is going to make
his prejudices into laws of nature.
GLOBARR
<thr...@sheol.org> (Wayne Throop) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
: This idea, that you now accept so readily (along with one
: other SR expert), that there really is a reality that exists
: down below the coordinates, is exactly what is done in the
: ether approach!!!!!
Throop wrote:
First, GLOBARR continues to pretend there exist ANY "SR
experts" who think coordinates are required for things to be
real. Give it up GLOBARR. You aren't going to fool anybody
with this one.
Second, GLOBARR pretends that the fact the ether approach
happens to share this property of SR is somehow a wonder, a
marvel, and should cause all and sundry to bow down and kowtow
at the alter of GLOBARR's Ether. Give it up GLOBARR. You
aren't going to fool anybody with this one, either.
Yes. Agreed. Sure. "In the ether approach, reality exists
independently of its description". The map is not the
teritory. The word is not the item it names. But then, this
is just one of MANY things the ether approach and SR have in
common; one of the myriad of assumptions common to newtonian
mechanics, maxwellian electrodynamics, and unifications of the
two. Pretending that this one somehow makes the ether more
plausible is just that; pretense.
O'Barr comments:
I'll give you anything you want, Throop. If you want all SR
experts to agree that SR math coordinates are not reality, that
is fine with me! If you want SR and the ether to be in full
agreement, that is fine with me. These things are all true. I
just did not think SR experts were saying these things!
And if you agree that in the ether approach, `reality exists
independently of its description,' that is most perfect. I
never thought that agreement would be so easy!!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
: In the ether approach, we find that we can figure out what
: this reality really is.
Throop wrote:
No, . . .
O'Barr comments:
No? You mean we finally have a disagreement?
Throop wrote: . . .
in the ether approach, what we actually find is that
we can make an assumption about what this reality really is
which is compatible with the facts.
O'Barr comments:
Technically you are correct. Thanks for keeping us
straight!
Throop wrote: . . .
A point that was never in dispute; it's only GLOBARR who tries
to elevate this into a claim to have Discerned How Reality
Really Works. But just because GLOBARR says so doesn't make
things so.
O'Barr comments:
Again, you are correct. Thanks for keeping us straight!
O'Barr wrote:
: We can now see how the real reality, matched with the changes
: in the coordinate system, produces all of the effects that
: are observed. Isn't that neat!!!!!
Throop wrote: . . .
What we can see is what we've seen all along. GLOBARR has a
prejudice about what "the real reality" is. He's very adamant
about his prejudice. He's really, really, really sure of it.
He likes to predict that people who don't share his prejudice
will someday be ridiculed, and he likes to pretend people who
don't share his prejudice are somehow unreasonable or
wrongheaded.
But none of that changes things. It's still just GLOBARR's
prejudice, and not The Way Reality Really Is Handed Down On
Stone Tablets (amen).
And no amount of predicting, pretending, gesticulating,
exclaimation-pointing, foaming at the mouth and in general
being very, very silly that GLOBARR can do is going to make
his prejudices into laws of nature.
O'Barr comments:
You are absolutely correct. Except there are a few minor
things that you could mention. How about the fact that the
ether approach is perfect in terms of all of its predictions?
How about the fact that it does all this in simple 3-D space
and simple, independent, 1-D time? How about it does all this
with simple Newtonian physics? How about the limits that can
be applied to the math? How about the possibilities of
physical causes, physical effects, physical explanations? How
about understandability? How about logic? How about no
paradoxes? How about the explaining of SR?
Now none of the above is any `pretending, gesticulating,
exclaimation-pointing, foaming at the mouth and in general
being very, very silly that GLOBARR ... is going to make
his prejudices into laws of nature.' But it is a big amen!
And guess what, Throop, you know all this. So why are you
making such a big deal out of all this? Why not just list all
the advantages and disadvantages fairly, and take it however it
comes out. Now wouldn't that be fair?????
Edward Schaefer
>
> And I dare you, ... Let
> us see ... any ... SR expert, take these crazy and
> impossible coordinate changes, and come up with a realistic,
> *** physical, ***
> *** and consistent, ***
> and reasonable, and logical explanation, as to how all this is
> physically accomplished! What a simple thing to ask for, and
> yet I dare you to do it!
You asked for it:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=600706996
EMS
Daryl McCullough
>I'll give you anything you want, Throop. If you want all SR
>experts to agree that SR math coordinates are not reality, that
>is fine with me! If you want SR and the ether to be in full
>agreement, that is fine with me. These things are all true. I
>just did not think SR experts were saying these things!
The modern way that Special and General relativity are taught
(see, for example, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_)
tends to deemphasize coordinates in favor of coordinate-independent
quantities. The objective, observer-independent reality that SR
and GR presupposes is called "spacetime", which is the arena in
which everything takes place. The coordinate-independent quantities
that are of interest in relativity are: events, scalars, vectors,
tensors, etc.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY-
Wayne Throop
: I'll give you anything you want, Throop.
Promises, promises. But if you really mean it,
and it isn't just a rhetorical exageration, then what
I'd really like is for you to recognize and acknowledge
when you are exagerating beyond what you can justification.
Such as, when you promise me "anything I want",
or say things like "SR is dead".
: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math coordinates are not
: reality, that is fine with me!
It's not something I *want*. It's something I have observed to be a fact.
: I just did not think SR experts were saying these things!
Then it's time you should wake up, pay a bit of attention, and get a grip.
: How about the fact that the ether approach is perfect in terms of all
: of its predictions?
So is the epicycle approach.
These things don't get mentioned, because they are uncontroversial.
: How about the fact that it does all this in simple 3-D space and
: simple, independent, 1-D time?
Indeed, I *do* point this out regularly.
It's one of the things that are wrong with ether theories.
The segregation of space and time in ether theories is what leads to all
the rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement, and the consequent
conclusion that measurement of "real" quantities is impossible, which is
necessary for the ether approach to end up with "perfect" predictions.
: How about the limits that can be applied to the math?
How about them?
: How about the possibilities of physical causes, physical effects,
: physical explanations? How about understandability? How about logic?
: How about no paradoxes?
But it is only another pretense of GLOBARR's that SR lacks these things.
But GLOBARR's pretense doesn't change the facts, which are that SR involves
physical causes, effects, and explanations, is extremely simple and
understandable, logical, and involves no paradoxes whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but SR's reputation for strangeness is simply a marketing gimmick.
It sold Sunday Science Supplements for decades to pretend that this waw
Really Mysterious and Marvelous Complicated Incomprehensible Stuff.
But it isn't. Shake off the media-induced hypnotic trance and rent a clue.
: How about the explaining of SR?
And just what do you think I've been doing all this time?
I've been explaining just how and why SR stands on it's own,
and that plastering a layer on top of galilean invariance to
get lorentzian invariance is guilding the lily.
But it seems that the only fruit of this effort is the discovery
that you can lead an etherialist to structure, but you cannot make one think.
: Why not just list all the advantages and disadvantages fairly, and
: take it however it comes out. Now wouldn't that be fair?????
Soit'ny. I've done it several times. The problem is that GLOBARR
refuses to accept that his prejudice in favor of segregation
of space and time is just that; a prejudice. Hence, GLOBARR
lists satisfying these prejudices of his as an "advantage"
of ether theory. Which is hardly fair of him.
Edward Schaefer
>
> ***** O'Barr special note: I do not often get the opportunity
> to praise the post of an SR expert. But this post by Daryl is
> a very special post! This is the first post, that I know of,
> the twins in a more correct way. He has tried to explain it in
> a physical way. I hope that one of these days he will be kind
> enough to explain it to everyone!!!!! *************
We are all trying to explain it in a physical way. The fact the you do
not consider some of what we describe physical does not change that.
In any case your response was interesting:
> [Daryl McCullough wrote:]
> >
> > Here's the sequence of events:
> > A = the twins depart
> > B = the Earth twin celebrates his 5th birthday since
> > separating
> > C = the travelling twin turns around
> > D = the twins reunite
> >
> > From the point of view of the stay-at-home twin, the time
> > between A and C is 5 years, and the travelling twin ages 2.5
> > years. The time between C and D is also 5 years, and the
> > travelling twin ages another 2.5 years. Events B and C are
> > simultaneous.
> > From the point of view of the travelling twin, during
> > turnaround, event B jumps from being 7.5 years in the future
> > of event C to being -7.5 years in the past of event C. In the
> > coordinate system of the return trip, the elapsed time between
> > event B and event D is 10 years. During this time, the stay-
> > at-home twin ages only 5 years.
> > So, both twins view the other as aging at half the speed,
> > except the discontinuous jump during turnaround.
>
> If we used your above
> approach, we will have one twin existing in more than one
> place at the same time.
That is not true. You do have the stay-at-home twin being seen as
passing through the same time *coordinate*, but he is doing so in two
different coordinate systems.
> Now this is not physically possible, and neither are the jumps-in-times.
Correct. The stay-at-home twin cannot change his *physical* position in
spacetime due to the acceleration of the traveling twin. That simply is
not physically possible.
Remember what you wrote earlier about being able to read maps? Well,
when you accelerate, the map you use to interpret spacetime changes.
That is the *physical* effect that occurred. It's as if you used a map
with coordinates given in miles north of Atlanta, and then once you got
into North Carolina started using a map with coordinates given in miles
north of Raleigh. You would find yourself passing through the same
coordinates a second time as you went from Atlanta to Richmond, but your
being at y=0 the second time does not mean that you were at the same
latitude a second time.
Seeing the stay-at-home twin at t''=0 is not the same as his being at
t=t'=0, where t is time in the stay-at-home twin's frame, t' is time in
the traveling twin's *outbound* frame, and t'' is time in the traveling
twin's *inbound* frame. Each frame maps time to events differently.
That's the key.
> You have not physically
> explained how all these things can really physically occur in
> any kind of a consistent way.
That is because you are interpreting the temporal coordinates as being
absolutes instead of just coordinates. The SAME EVENT is being observed
before and after turnaround. What has changed is the *coordinates* of
the event which is the stay-at-home twin as viewed at turnaround, NOT
the physical position of that event itself.
EMS
GLOBARR
<da...@cogentex.com> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .
> I'll give you anything you want, Throop. If you want all SR
> full agreement, that is fine with me. These things are all
> things!
McCullough wrote:
The modern way that Special and General relativity are taught
(see, for example, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's
_Gravitation_) tends to deemphasize coordinates in favor of
coordinate-independent quantities. The objective, observer-
independent reality that SR and GR presupposes is called
"spacetime", which is the arena in which everything takes
place. The coordinate-independent quantities that are of
interest in relativity are: events, scalars, vectors, tensors,
etc.
O'Barr comments:
So I guess you do not agree with Throop! Throop was saying
that there was a real reality down below the coordinates. You
did not say this. You said that there is now a de-emphasis,
but a de-emphasis means nothing! A de-emphasis in no way
means a change in any fact.
And you did not, even in your long list of what was being
emphasized, mention any physical reality that existed
independent of the coordinates. You mentioned 4-D spacetime,
which is physically impossible, and which there is no prove
for at all, and you mentioned scalars, vectors, and tensors,
which are all just math. So exactly nowhere do you support
Throop! Sorry, Throop, you seem to be a group of one!!!!!!
The ether theory clearly explains that there is a reality
down below all of the coordinates. The real reality is
simple, in simple 3-D space, and with simple 1-D time. The
real reality includes simple velocity vector additions. The
real reality is understandable, physical, with physical
causes. Everything in the ether is simple, and direct, with
never anything that could be said to be a paradox.
And thus the ether approach is so much more superior to
SR, which is not simple, which is not even physically
possible, which cannot even explain, which has no physical
causes. SR is the most Voodoo of beliefs! SR is so sick,
that it cannot even tell us what really happens, let alone
tell us why or how! It is one sick belief!!!!!!! And if it
is not dead, then why does it stink so bad??????
GLOBARR
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
: I'll give you anything you want, Throop.
Throop wrote:
Promises, promises. But if you really mean it, and it isn't
just a rhetorical exageration, then what I'd really like is for
you to recognize and acknowledge when you are exagerating
beyond what you can justification.
Such as, when you promise me "anything I want", or say
things like "SR is dead".
O'Barr comments:
I do sometimes over-state things. And just as I am doing
here, I sometimes under-state things. There are times when I
say something that could be said in some better way. In the
end, it will not matter what I say. What matters are what you
know, and what you think. SR is as dead as dead can be in
terms of its philosophy! SR's philosophy can no longer be
accepted by any thinking person. It is physically impossible.
It has concepts that are unacceptable, and where no evidence
has ever been seen to support it! And the ether approach can
replace it perfectly! And on a scientific basis, you cannot
argue otherwise! Therefore, when you argue for SR, you are
being stupid, and unwise, and unscientific. I would not like
to be in your shoes. And you would not have to change much, to
be more scientific. You would not have to change much to be
honest. All you have to do is say only what you really know!
O'Barr wrote:
: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math coordinates
: are not reality, that is fine with me!
Throop wrote:
It's not something I *want*. It's something I have observed to
be a fact.
O'Barr comments:
Please be sure that I support you in this!!!
But you were not supported in this by the last SR poster!
How come you see this as a fact, and they don't????
>
O'Barr wrote:
: How about the fact that the ether approach is perfect in
: terms of all of its predictions?
Throop wrote:
So is the epicycle approach. These things don't get mentioned,
because they are uncontroversial.
O'Barr comments:
But the ether approach is not an epicycle approach!
Originally it could have been. But who cares what they thought
or did a 100 years ago? Today, we know more, and today (as it
can be presented today), it is not an epicycle approach. It is
a physical theory that is just as perfectly established as SR!
O'Barr comments about what the ether does:
: How about the fact that it does all this in simple 3-D space
: and simple, independent, 1-D time?
Throop wrote:
Indeed, I *do* point this out regularly.
It's one of the things that are wrong with ether theories.
O'Barr comments:
There is nothing wrong with the ether approach. Are you
trying to believe your FAQ???? The predictions of the ether
are just as perfect as SR. They are the same mathematically!
Therefore, it is impossible for there to be anything wrong!
Throop wrote:
The segregation of space and time in ether theories is what
leads to all the rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement,
and the consequent conclusion that measurement of "real"
quantities is impossible, which is necessary for the ether
approach to end up with "perfect" predictions.
O'Barr comments:
There is no `rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement'
at all. I guess, to you, Einstein was using `rube-goldberg-
esque treatment of measurement' when he proposed that all
measurements will automatically be of the same form in all
inertial frames? Now wasn't that just a `rube-goldberg' forced
matching to what was being seen?
O'Barr wrote about the ether approach:
: How about the limits that can be applied to the math?
Throop wrote:
How about them?
O'Barr comments:
Are you saying you do not know what I mean by this?
O'Barr wrote:
: How about the possibilities of physical causes, physical
: effects, physical explanations? How about understandability?
: How about logic? How about no paradoxes?
Throop wrote:
But it is only another pretense of GLOBARR's that SR lacks
these things. But GLOBARR's pretense doesn't change the facts,
which are that SR involves physical causes, effects, and
explanations, is extremely simple and understandable, logical,
and involves no paradoxes whatsoever.
O'Barr comments:
And this is such a lie! You have no physical base to your
theory at all. It is all math. And thus you have no physical
way to explain one single thing. Not only do you have no
physical way to explain anything, you cannot even tell us what
really physically happens! If what you say is correct, then
why not answer any one thing you would like to answer! Tell me
if the lengths of rulers really physically change! Tell me
what physically causes it to happen! Tell me what anything
really physically does!
Throop wrote:
I'm sorry, but SR's reputation for strangeness is simply a
marketing gimmick. It sold Sunday Science Supplements for
decades to pretend that this waw Really Mysterious and
Marvelous Complicated Incomprehensible Stuff.
But it isn't. Shake off the media-induced hypnotic trance
and rent a clue.
O'Barr comments:
I see. And this newsgroup is the left overs from all this?
And I am just dumb and can't make my mind believe in 4-D stuff?
There is no one sicker than one who would say that physically
impossible things are easy to believe in. And you do all this
without one single bit of evidence. If you had any evidence,
then the ether could not be equal to SR!
O'Barr wrote:
: How about the explaining of SR?
Throop wrote:
And just what do you think I've been doing all this time?
I've been explaining just how and why SR stands on it's own,
and that plastering a layer on top of galilean invariance to
get lorentzian invariance is guilding the lily.
But it seems that the only fruit of this effort is the
discovery that you can lead an etherialist to structure, but
you cannot make one think.
O'Barr comments:
The bringing in the ether allows us to remove physically
impossible concepts that are now present in SR philosophy!
Bringing in the ether allows us to go back to the simplest
physics, with simple 3-D space, and simple 1-D time. It allows
us to have physical causes, and know the real reality down
below the coordinates that act so strange! At no time are we
`guilding the lily.' You are one sad case!
O'Barr wrote:
: Why not just list all the advantages and disadvantages
: fairly, and take it however it comes out. Now wouldn't that
: be fair?????
Throop wrote:
Soit'ny. . . .
O'Barr comments:
I didn't know you knew French!!!!
Throop wrote:
I've done it several times. The problem is that GLOBARR
refuses to accept that his prejudice in favor of segregation of
space and time is just that; a prejudice. Hence, GLOBARR lists
satisfying these prejudices of his as an "advantage" of ether
theory. Which is hardly fair of him.
O'Barr comments:
Life is not fair. And science is not concerned with my
prejudices or with what I think! 3-D space is simpler than 4-D
spacetime continuums! This has nothing to do with any of my
prejudices! 4-D spacetime continuums is physically impossible.
This has nothing to do with how I think! Back-in-time just
does not exist. This is not my fault! For you to blame me
that your SR is dead is funny! It killed itself by being
impossible. By being something that is unsupportable. And you
are going to hate yourself, not me, when you come to your
senses!
GLOBARR
6/15/00
In <8ib2kf$v...@edrn.newsguy.com>
<da...@cogentex.com> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
***** O'Barr special note: I do not often get the opportunity
to praise the post of an SR expert. But this post by Daryl is
a very special post! This is the first post, that I know of,
made by an SR expert, who has tried to explain the paradox of
the twins in a more correct way. He has tried to explain it in
a physical way. I hope that one of these days he will be kind
enough to explain it to everyone!!!!! *************
O'Barr comments:
McCullough wrote:
That's true. Here's the sequence of events:
A = the twins depart
B = the Earth twin celebrates his 5th birthday since
separating
C = the travelling twin turns around
D = the twins reunite
From the point of view of the stay-at-home twin, the time
between A and C is 5 years, and the travelling twin ages 2.5
years. The time between C and D is also 5 years, and the
travelling twin ages another 2.5 years. Events B and C are
simultaneous.
From the point of view of the travelling twin, during
turnaround, event B jumps from being 7.5 years in the future
of event C to being -7.5 years in the past of event C. In the
coordinate system of the return trip, the elapsed time between
event B and event D is 10 years. During this time, the stay-
at-home twin ages only 5 years.
So, both twins view the other as aging at half the speed,
except the discontinuous jump during turnaround.
O'Barr comments:
And now all we have to find out is what really happened.
We know what the coordinates did. Wouldn't it be nice to know
what physically happened!!!!!!!!! If we used your above
approach, we will have one twin existing in more than one
place at the same time. Now this is not physically possible,
and neither are the jumps-in-times. You have not physically
explained how all these things can really physically occur in
any kind of a consistent way. How come???? I believe you
could do this if you really tried.
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
David Evens
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <9615...@sheol.org> <thr...@sheol.org> (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
> : I'll give you anything you want, Throop.
>
> Throop wrote:
> Promises, promises. But if you really mean it, and it isn't
> just a rhetorical exageration, then what I'd really like is for
> you to recognize and acknowledge when you are exagerating
> beyond what you can justification.
> Such as, when you promise me "anything I want", or say
> things like "SR is dead".
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I do sometimes over-state things. And just as I am doing
> here, I sometimes under-state things. There are times when I
> say something that could be said in some better way. In the
> end, it will not matter what I say. What matters are what you
> know, and what you think. SR is as dead as dead can be in
> terms of its philosophy! SR's philosophy can no longer be
> accepted by any thinking person. It is physically impossible.
Why do you assume that?
> It has concepts that are unacceptable, and where no evidence
> has ever been seen to support it!
Why do you assume this?
> And the ether approach can
> replace it perfectly! And on a scientific basis, you cannot
> argue otherwise! Therefore, when you argue for SR, you are
> being stupid, and unwise, and unscientific.
Why do you assume this?
> I would not like
> to be in your shoes. And you would not have to change much, to
> be more scientific. You would not have to change much to be
> honest. All you have to do is say only what you really know!
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> : If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math coordinates
> : are not reality, that is fine with me!
>
> Throop wrote:
> It's not something I *want*. It's something I have observed to
> be a fact.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Please be sure that I support you in this!!!
> But you were not supported in this by the last SR poster!
> How come you see this as a fact, and they don't????
Why do you assume that there is a conflict?
> O'Barr wrote:
> : How about the fact that the ether approach is perfect in
> : terms of all of its predictions?
>
> Throop wrote:
> So is the epicycle approach. These things don't get mentioned,
> because they are uncontroversial.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But the ether approach is not an epicycle approach!
Why do you assume this?
> Originally it could have been. But who cares what they thought
> or did a 100 years ago? Today, we know more, and today (as it
> can be presented today), it is not an epicycle approach. It is
> a physical theory that is just as perfectly established as SR!
Why do you assume this?
> O'Barr comments about what the ether does:
> : How about the fact that it does all this in simple 3-D space
> : and simple, independent, 1-D time?
>
> Throop wrote:
> Indeed, I *do* point this out regularly.
> It's one of the things that are wrong with ether theories.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> There is nothing wrong with the ether approach. Are you
> trying to believe your FAQ???? The predictions of the ether
> are just as perfect as SR. They are the same mathematically!
> Therefore, it is impossible for there to be anything wrong!
Why do you assume this?
> Throop wrote:
> The segregation of space and time in ether theories is what
> leads to all the rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement,
> and the consequent conclusion that measurement of "real"
> quantities is impossible, which is necessary for the ether
> approach to end up with "perfect" predictions.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> There is no `rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement'
> at all.
Why do you assume this?
> I guess, to you, Einstein was using `rube-goldberg-
> esque treatment of measurement' when he proposed that all
> measurements will automatically be of the same form in all
> inertial frames? Now wasn't that just a `rube-goldberg' forced
> matching to what was being seen?
You really have NO idea who Rube Goldberg was or what he did, do you?
> O'Barr wrote about the ether approach:
> : How about the limits that can be applied to the math?
>
> Throop wrote:
> How about them?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Are you saying you do not know what I mean by this?
He's saying that YOU do not know what you mean by this.
> O'Barr wrote:
> : How about the possibilities of physical causes, physical
> : effects, physical explanations? How about understandability?
> : How about logic? How about no paradoxes?
>
> Throop wrote:
> But it is only another pretense of GLOBARR's that SR lacks
> these things. But GLOBARR's pretense doesn't change the facts,
> which are that SR involves physical causes, effects, and
> explanations, is extremely simple and understandable, logical,
> and involves no paradoxes whatsoever.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And this is such a lie!
Why do you assume this?
> You have no physical base to your
> theory at all. It is all math.
Why do you assume this?
> And thus you have no physical
> way to explain one single thing.
Why do you assume this?
> Not only do you have no
> physical way to explain anything, you cannot even tell us what
> really physically happens!
Why do you assume this?
> If what you say is correct, then
> why not answer any one thing you would like to answer! Tell me
> if the lengths of rulers really physically change!
In what sense do you want to know if they are changing?
> Tell me
> what physically causes it to happen!
There's this thing called 'geometry'. Since you seem to not have heard
of it before, you might want to go back to grade school.
> Tell me what anything
> really physically does!
>
> Throop wrote:
> I'm sorry, but SR's reputation for strangeness is simply a
> marketing gimmick. It sold Sunday Science Supplements for
> decades to pretend that this waw Really Mysterious and
> Marvelous Complicated Incomprehensible Stuff.
> But it isn't. Shake off the media-induced hypnotic trance
> and rent a clue.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I see. And this newsgroup is the left overs from all this?
> And I am just dumb and can't make my mind believe in 4-D stuff?
> There is no one sicker than one who would say that physically
> impossible things are easy to believe in. And you do all this
> without one single bit of evidence. If you had any evidence,
> then the ether could not be equal to SR!
It is indeed unequal: Ether theories are grossly inferior.
> O'Barr wrote:
> : How about the explaining of SR?
>
> Throop wrote:
> And just what do you think I've been doing all this time?
> I've been explaining just how and why SR stands on it's own,
> and that plastering a layer on top of galilean invariance to
> get lorentzian invariance is guilding the lily.
> But it seems that the only fruit of this effort is the
> discovery that you can lead an etherialist to structure, but
> you cannot make one think.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> The bringing in the ether allows us to remove physically
> impossible concepts that are now present in SR philosophy!
Why do you assume this?
> Bringing in the ether allows us to go back to the simplest
> physics, with simple 3-D space, and simple 1-D time. It allows
> us to have physical causes, and know the real reality down
> below the coordinates that act so strange! At no time are we
> `guilding the lily.' You are one sad case!
Why do you assume this?
> O'Barr wrote:
> : Why not just list all the advantages and disadvantages
> : fairly, and take it however it comes out. Now wouldn't that
> : be fair?????
>
> Throop wrote:
> Soit'ny. . . .
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I didn't know you knew French!!!!
Looks like Gerald doesn't know pop culture, either. This leads to the
obvious question of what sort of cave he's lived his entire life in.
> Throop wrote:
> I've done it several times. The problem is that GLOBARR
> refuses to accept that his prejudice in favor of segregation of
> space and time is just that; a prejudice. Hence, GLOBARR lists
> satisfying these prejudices of his as an "advantage" of ether
> theory. Which is hardly fair of him.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Life is not fair. And science is not concerned with my
> prejudices or with what I think! 3-D space is simpler than 4-D
> spacetime continuums! This has nothing to do with any of my
> prejudices! 4-D spacetime continuums is physically impossible.
Why do you assume this?
> This has nothing to do with how I think! Back-in-time just
> does not exist. This is not my fault! For you to blame me
> that your SR is dead is funny! It killed itself by being
> impossible. By being something that is unsupportable.
Why do you assume this?
> And you
> are going to hate yourself, not me, when you come to your
> senses!
Why do you assume this?
Daryl McCullough
>McCullough wrote:
>Here's an analogy that might help you.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> Sorry, I do not believe I need any help.
Yes, you do.
>I am not the one who said that something `got pushed'!
But you seem to believe that *SR* says that something
got pushed. SR says no such thing.
> And if the best that you can do, is just offer an analogy,
>who in the world would want that?
That's the way people learn, by analogy. The only
way to understand effects in 4-dimensional Minkowsky
space is by trying to understand first the analogous
effect in 3-dimensional Euclidean space.
>McCullough wrote:
>Suppose that you are in a car heading away from Omaha,
>Nebraska. Choose your coordinate system so that the x-axis is
>straight ahead. When you are 100 kilometers away from Omaha,
>you suddenly pull a 180 degree turn, so that you are heading
>*towards* Omaha. During the turn, the x-coordinate of Omaha
>jumps from -100 km to +100 km. What force caused the entire
>city of Omaha to jump?
>
>O'Barr comments:
> And this is what makes analogies so sick!!! I was a Boy
>Scout! I know how to read maps! I know how to orientate
>maps. Have you ever heard of a compass, or the North star?
>And as a scout, I could turn myself about a hundred times, and
>my map did not change the location of one single object! You
>are so sick it is pitiful! You are not even a scout!!!!!
Okay, if you want to use a map analogy, that's fine. You are
in Tennessee, navigating according to a map of Tennessee. Your
path takes you off the upper edge of the map. So you pull out
a map of Kentucky. Now, according to this map, your position
is on the *lower* edge. You didn't suddenly jump, you changed
maps.
>McCullough wrote:
>The answer is *none*. A change of coordinates is not
>physical, it is simply a change in the way you describe
>things. Performing a sudden acceleration causes a
>discontinuous shift in the way the world looks *to* *you*.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> (What a scary thing. You sound like an ether expert!)
> Do you mean to say that there really is a real reality down
>below all these coordinates and all these changes?
Yes, yes, yes! Relativity is not about coordinates,
it is about the reality that is *reflected* by those
coordinates. The coordinates are the map. The reality
is spacetime.
>If so, then what coordinates do you use to describe these real
>objects,
You can use any coordinates you like. In order to talk about
what has happened, you need to be able to refer to particular
points in space and time. You need a coordinate system to do
this. But a coordinate system is nothing but a convention for
*naming* spacetime points.
>and where are these real coordinates that can be
>relied on to really tell us what really happens??!!!
According to SR, what "really happens" is what is
true for any coordinate system. In the twin paradox,
here are the facts that everyone agrees on:
1. There is an event (A) at which both twins are together,
and they are the same age.
2. There is an event (C) at which one twin undergoes
a sudden acceleration.
3. There is an event (D) at which the two twins reunite.
4. The proper time between events A and C is 2.5 years.
5. The proper time between events C and D is 2.5 years.
6. The proper time between events A and D is 10 years.
>McCullough wrote:
>Now, in SR, the relevant "locations" are not simply points in
>space---they are points in *spacetime* (also called "events").
>A sudden acceleration changes both the spatial *and* the time
>coordinates of an event.
>
>O'Barr comments:
>But you just explained that coordinates are not physical.
>I do not want to talk about non-physical things!
Fine. The only physical facts that are relevent to the
twin paradox are these:
1. At event A, the twins are the same age. Their relative
velocity is .866 c.
2. At event C, one twin undergoes acceleration. Afterwards
his velocity relative to the other twin is again .866c, but
in the opposite direction.
3. At event D, the twins reunite.
4. The proper time between A and C is 2.5 years.
5. The proper time between C and D is 2.5 years.
6. The proper time between A and D is 10 years.
Those are all the physical facts that are involved.
>McCullough wrote:
>So, in the twin paradox with one twin travelling out at .866 c
>for 5 years (according to the stay-at-home twin), consider
>the event "The earth-bound twin celebrates his 5th birthday
>since the two twins separated." In the coordinate system
>used by the travelling twin on his outbound trip, this
>event has coordinates
>
> x = -8.66 light-years
> t = 10 years (7.5 years after turn-around)
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Can we assume that you are correct? These are not the
>coordinates that were given by the last SR expert!!!!
>What tells you that you are correct?
It's a trivial application of the Lorentz transformations:
x' = gamma (x - vt)
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)
For event B (the stay-at-home twin celebrates his
5th birthday since separating from his twin), x=0,
t=5. For our case, gamma = 2, v/c = .866.
x' = 2 * (0 - .866 * 5)
= -8.66 light-years.
t' = 2 * (5 - 0)
= 10 years
> And so let the SR experts that are in the travelling
>twin's frame take a picture of this event, where you say t=10
>years.
The event we are talking about is on *Earth*. I'm talking
about the 5th birthday of the *stay-at-home* twin. In the
outbound coordinate system of the travelling twin, that
takes place at time t=10 years.
>And in this picture, include a growing plant that has
>been with this twin since they departed, and which grows 1
>foot each year. What will this picture show?
The earth-bound plant will be 5 feet taller at event B
(5th birthday of stay-at-home twin) and 10 feet taller
at event D (they reunite). The travelling plant will
be 2.5 feet taller at event C (turnaround) and 5 feet
taller at event D.
>Will the traveling twin know that something physically
>occurred at this specific point, and at no other point???
Sorry, I don't know what point you are talking about.
But no matter. What physically happens is that each
plant grows 1 foot for each year of proper time. The
twins travel so that one twin gets to the return point
in just 5 years proper time, while the other twin gets
to the same (spacetime) point in 10 years proper time.
One twin took a "shortcut". That's all.
>Do you, as an SR expert, know that something would be
>physically true at this point??? And then as soon as
>the traveling twin turns around, take the same picture
>again, and what do you see?
You have to explain to me how the travelling twin
can take a picture of something that takes place
at a different place and a different time. The best
he can do is take picture of what the other twin
was like at some time in the past (the time at which
the light left the stay-at-home twin).
>And what was real, and what was only a change in coordinates?
What was real was that one twin took 10 years to get
to point D, while the other twin only took 5 years to
get there.
>O'Barr wrote:
>>Did the stay at home twin feel this push?
>
>McCullough wrote:
>No. The "forces" that move the stay-at-home twin around
>are "fictitious" forces due to the use noninertial coordinate
>systems. In the same way, if you spin yourself around and
>around, it will seem that there is a centrifugal force flinging
>things outward and a coriolis force. But the rest of the world
>doesn't feel these forces (which is why they are called
>"fictitious"). In GR, Einstein proposed that gravity is a kind
>of fictitious force: a person in freefall doesn't feel it.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> It all depends on your frame of reference, doesn't it. In
>certain frames, these are forces that must be assumed to be
>there in order to get the correct answers! And thus in those
>frames, the forces are real.
Okay. But fictitious forces are introduced by using a noninertial
*coordinate* system. Using a different coordinate system, you get
different fictitious forces.
Daryl McCullough
><da...@cogentex.com> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>The modern way that Special and General relativity are taught
>(see, for example, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's
>_Gravitation_) tends to deemphasize coordinates in favor of
>coordinate-independent quantities. The objective, observer-
>independent reality that SR and GR presupposes is called
>"spacetime", which is the arena in which everything takes
>place. The coordinate-independent quantities that are of
>interest in relativity are: events, scalars, vectors, tensors,
>etc.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> So I guess you do not agree with Throop! Throop was saying
>that there was a real reality down below the coordinates. You
>did not say this.
Yes, I did. The reality underlying the coordinates is *spacetime*.
Wayne Throop
: SR is as dead as dead can be in terms of its philosophy! SR's
: philosophy can no longer be accepted by any thinking person. It is
: physically impossible.
Don't be stupid, GLOBARR. Minkowskian geometry is no more "physically
impossible" than Euclidean geometry. It's just this sort of exageration
and wrong-headed unjustified prejudice that makes such a bad impression
and reduces the chances you will ever be taken seriously by anybody who
can tell a hawk from a handsaw, whatever the prevailing wind direction.
: It has concepts that are unacceptable,
And here is the true GLOBARR agenda peeking through again.
People shouldn't use concepts GLOBARR finds "unacceptable".
: and where no evidence has ever been seen to support it!
GLOBARR can squeeze more misrepresentation and misdirection into a
single half-sentence than anybody else I know of. "No evidence to
support it" he says, knowing full well that his idea of what constitutes
"evidence" and "support" differs from that normally used in a scientific
context.
: And the ether approach can replace it perfectly! And on a scientific
: basis, you cannot argue otherwise!
And GLOBARR knows full well the reasons why, historically, the
ether approach was replaced by the SR appraoch. And, the SR approach
replaced it "perfectly", and on a scientific basis, GLBOARR cannot
argue otherwise. But he'll tgry to give the impression there's
something wrong with SR "scientifically".
Sort of like the advertizements that say "no other product works better!"
(while carefully avoiding mention of the fact that no other product works
any worse, either).
So. Yes. "SR works no better than LET".
But it works no worse, and builds strong theories twelve ways LET does not.
All of which GLOBARR is aware of. He just wants people to
stop thinking thoughts he finds "unacceptable".
::: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math coordinates are not
::: reality, that is fine with me!
:: It's not something I *want*. It's something I have observed to be a fact.
: Please be sure that I support you in this!!!
So you've either changed your mind, or you are acknowledging you
were intentionally lying when you claimed "But in SR, every thing
that is real is in the coordinates".
Right?
: But you were not supported in this by the last SR poster!
Ah. You are still lying, or deluded. OK. Business as usual.
: There is nothing wrong with the ether approach.
It's inconvenient and misleading. Demonstrably so.
It's been demonstrated several times, right in this newsgroup.
: The predictions of the ether are just as perfect as SR.
: They are the same mathematically!
But "they" (ether concepts) are less convenient to apply to actual problems.
As demonstrated several times by working problems from the viewpoint of
the ether, vs working them from arbitrary lorentz-transformed frames.
Yes, you can derive the lorentz transforms from ether concepts. They
are "the same mathematically" as the SR concepts from which the
lorentz transforms can also be derived. But *in* *actual* *practical*
*use*, ether concepts are extra baggage that only cause problems.
:: The segregation of space and time in ether theories is what leads to
:: all the rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement, and the
:: consequent conclusion that measurement of "real" quantities is
:: impossible, which is necessary for the ether approach to end up with
:: "perfect" predictions.
: There is no `rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement' at all. I
: guess, to you, Einstein was using `rube-goldberg- esque treatment of
: measurement' when he proposed that all measurements will automatically
: be of the same form in all inertial frames? Now wasn't that just a
: `rube-goldberg' forced matching to what was being seen?
In short, no. Einstein is using the *opposite* of the Rube Goldberg apprach.
Or, let me put it this way, without the amusing image of the old
Rube Goldberg cartoon gadgets. I'll use a different amusing image,
that of a traditional Zen saying.
In newtonian physics, a clock was just a clock, and a rod was just a
rod. But then there was electrodynamics, and things got complicated.
To deal with the findings of electrodynamics, in LET a clock was no
longer just a clock, and a rod was no longer just a rod. Then Einstein
came up with an insight, and things got simpler again, just as simple as
they had been under Newton, and again a clock is just a clock, and a
rod is just a rod.
::: How about the limits that can be applied to the math?
:: How about them?
: Are you saying you do not know what I mean by this?
Bingo. Tell the man what he's won, Johnny.
:: SR involves physical causes, effects, and explanations, is extremely
:: simple and understandable, logical, and involves no paradoxes
:: whatsoever.
: And this is such a lie!
Shrug. You can gesticulate and foam at the mouth al you want, but it is
not only not a lie, it's been demonstrated over and over. SR concepts
are simple, straightforward, easier to use on practical problems, and
the underlying concepts are every bit as "physical" as those of the ether.
(Note: "underlying concepts"; not "the concepts required to account
for light propogation", the underlying concepts of the *theory* not
of the phenomena for which the theory provides a description.)
:: I'm sorry, but SR's reputation for strangeness is simply a marketing
:: gimmick. It sold Sunday Science Supplements for decades to pretend
:: that this waw Really Mysterious and Marvelous Complicated
:: Incomprehensible Stuff. But it isn't. Shake off the media-induced
:: hypnotic trance and rent a clue.
: I see. And this newsgroup is the left overs from all this?
Bingo. Would you like to play Double Blindingly Obvious,
where the cash and prizes can really mount up?
: And I am just dumb and can't make my mind believe in 4-D stuff?
Bzzzzt. Sorry. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.
Here are some lovely parting gifts, and perhaps you will have
some luck playing our home game.
: The bringing in the ether allows us to remove physically impossible
: concepts that are now present in SR philosophy!
But of course, since there are no physically impossible concepts present
in SR philosophy, bringing in the ether is a solution for which
no problem exists.
: Bringing in the ether allows us to go back to the simplest physics,
: with simple 3-D space, and simple 1-D time.
Demonstrably, emperically, practically, this is not the simplest physics.
::: Why not just list all the advantages and disadvantages fairly, and
::: take it however it comes out. Now wouldn't that be fair?????
:: Soit'ny.
: I didn't know you knew French!!!!
And you still don't.
: Life is not fair. And science is not concerned with my prejudices or
: with what I think! 3-D space is simpler than 4-D spacetime continuums!
But GLOBARR. Look what you just said above. The ether doesn't
have "3-D space". You yourself said it has "3-D space and 1-D time".
Which is NOT any simpler than 4-D spacetime.
: And you are going to hate yourself, not me, when you come to your senses!
If GLOBARR actually thinks I "hate" him now, he's sadly mistaken. And
more to the point, what I "hate" is totally irrelevant. GLOBARR
proposes a list of advantages and distdvantages. Fine. Working actual
problems is easier if you ignore the ether concepts GLOBARR is so fond
of. That's a fact. You can hate it all you want, it's still a fact,
and it's one of the reasons SR displaced LET decades ago.
: Back-in-time just does not exist.
Then I suggest that GLOBARR stop trying to turn back the clock, and
re-introduce ether concepts which were discarded for perfectly good reasons.
GLOBARR
da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Ref: <8io45n$1n...@edrn.newsguy.com>
<20000620220011...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> Sorry, I do not believe I need any help.
McCullough wrote:
Yes, you do.
O'Barr wrote:
>I am not the one who said that something `got pushed'!
McCullough wrote:
But you seem to believe that *SR* says that something
got pushed. SR says no such thing.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry, it was not I who made the original statement. I was
asking the person who made the statement to explain it! I knew
that he couldn't!
O'Barr wrote:
> And if the best that you can do, is just offer an analogy,
> who in the world would want that?
McCullough wrote:
That's the way people learn, by analogy. The only way to
understand effects in 4-dimensional Minkowsky space is by
trying to understand first the analogous effect in 3-
dimensional Euclidean space.
O'Barr comments:
The real situation is that it is physically impossible to
physically explain it by physical 4-D, and so the only way you
have to explain it is by analogy! Now by math you can explain
anything, even 5-D or 10-D or a 100-D, who could care? But
physically, it is impossible!!!!!! You have no real physical
explanation for 4-D, and no physical evidence for 4-D! Your
science simply stink!!!
>McCullough wrote:
>Suppose that you are in a car heading away from Omaha,
>Nebraska. Choose your coordinate system so that the x-axis is
>straight ahead. When you are 100 kilometers away from Omaha,
>you suddenly pull a 180 degree turn, so that you are heading
>*towards* Omaha. During the turn, the x-coordinate of Omaha
>jumps from -100 km to +100 km. What force caused the entire
>city of Omaha to jump?
>
>O'Barr comments:
> And this is what makes analogies so sick!!! I was a Boy
>Scout! I know how to read maps! I know how to orientate
>maps. Have you ever heard of a compass, or the North star?
>And as a scout, I could turn myself about a hundred times, and
>my map did not change the location of one single object! You
>are so sick it is pitiful! You are not even a scout!!!!!
McCullough wrote:
Okay, if you want to use a map analogy, that's fine. You are
in Tennessee, navigating according to a map of Tennessee. Your
path takes you off the upper edge of the map. So you pull out
a map of Kentucky. Now, according to this map, your position
is on the *lower* edge. You didn't suddenly jump, you changed
maps.
O'Barr comments:
What if I glued them together? Personally, you should know
that this is a losing battle. Analogy is not science!
>McCullough wrote:
>The answer is *none*. A change of coordinates is not
>physical, it is simply a change in the way you describe
>things. Performing a sudden acceleration causes a
>discontinuous shift in the way the world looks *to* *you*.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> (What a scary thing. You sound like an ether expert!)
> Do you mean to say that there really is a real reality down
>below all these coordinates and all these changes?
McCullough wrote:
Yes, yes, yes! Relativity is not about coordinates, it is about
the reality that is *reflected* by those coordinates. The
coordinates are the map. The reality is spacetime.
O'Barr comments:
Now this seems interesting? If I recall spacetime
descriptions, they were always given as a 4-D math function
that included coordinates for space and time. Did I miss
something?
O'Barr wrote (if there were a real reality in SR):
> ... then what coordinates do you use to describe these real
> objects,
McCullough wrote:
You can use any coordinates you like. In order to talk about
what has happened, you need to be able to refer to particular
points in space and time. You need a coordinate system to do
this. But a coordinate system is nothing but a convention for
*naming* spacetime points.
O'Barr comments:
The problem I find is that in some SR problems (even the
simplest of problems such as that of the paradox of the twins),
more than one frame can be involved, and SR says that all
frames (even simultaneously) are all equal in SR. And yet,
they are not all physically the same. You do not explain how
to go from frame to frame and not violate physical continuity!
In the ether theory, where all physical acts occur in only one
frame, there is never any violation of physical continuity!
Why is SR so dumb, and the ether so perfect?!!!!!
O'Barr comments:
>and where are these real coordinates that can be
>relied on to really tell us what really happens??!!!
McCullough wrote:
According to SR, what "really happens" is what is
true for any coordinate system. In the twin paradox,
here are the facts that everyone agrees on:
1. There is an event (A) at which both twins are together,
and they are the same age.
2. There is an event (C) at which one twin undergoes
a sudden acceleration.
3. There is an event (D) at which the two twins reunite.
4. The proper time between events A and C is 2.5 years.
5. The proper time between events C and D is 2.5 years.
6. The proper time between events A and D is 10 years.
O'Barr comments:
It is easy to find `facts' that we can all agree on. The
problem is in explaining these facts. The ether offers clear
and understandable explanations. SR offers nothing. All it
offers are the math answers!
>McCullough wrote:
>Now, in SR, the relevant "locations" are not simply points in
>space---they are points in *spacetime* (also called "events").
>A sudden acceleration changes both the spatial *and* the time
>coordinates of an event.
>
>O'Barr comments:
>But you just explained that coordinates are not physical.
>I do not want to talk about non-physical things!
McCullough wrote:
Fine. The only physical facts that are relevent to the
twin paradox are these:
1. At event A, the twins are the same age. Their relative
velocity is .866 c.
2. At event C, one twin undergoes acceleration. Afterwards
his velocity relative to the other twin is again .866c, but
in the opposite direction.
3. At event D, the twins reunite.
4. The proper time between A and C is 2.5 years.
5. The proper time between C and D is 2.5 years.
6. The proper time between A and D is 10 years.
Those are all the physical facts that are involved.
O'Barr comments:
Don't make my laugh! All you are doing above is re-iterating
what you did the first time, and it is all you can do. All you
are doing is repeating the math results. You have no physical
way to explain anything!
>McCullough wrote:
>So, in the twin paradox with one twin travelling out at .866 c
>for 5 years (according to the stay-at-home twin), consider
>the event "The earth-bound twin celebrates his 5th birthday
>since the two twins separated." In the coordinate system
>used by the travelling twin on his outbound trip, this
>event has coordinates
>
> x = -8.66 light-years
> t = 10 years (7.5 years after turn-around)
>
O'Barr wrote:
> Can we assume that you are correct? These are not the
>coordinates that were given by the last SR expert!!!!
>What tells you that you are correct?
McCullough wrote:
It's a trivial application of the Lorentz transformations:
x' = gamma (x - vt)
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)
For event B (the stay-at-home twin celebrates his
5th birthday since separating from his twin), x=0,
t=5. For our case, gamma = 2, v/c = .866.
x' = 2 * (0 - .866 * 5)
= -8.66 light-years.
t' = 2 * (5 - 0)
= 10 years
O'Barr wrote:
> And so let the SR experts that are in the travelling
>twin's frame take a picture of this event, where you say t=10
>years.
McCullough wrote:
The event we are talking about is on *Earth*. I'm talking
about the 5th birthday of the *stay-at-home* twin. In the
outbound coordinate system of the travelling twin, that
takes place at time t=10 years.
O'Barr wrote:
>And in this picture, include a growing plant that has
>been with this twin since they departed, and which grows 1
>foot each year. What will this picture show?
McCullough wrote:
The earth-bound plant will be 5 feet taller at event B(5th
birthday of stay-at-home twin) and 10 feet taller
at event D (they reunite). The travelling plant will
be 2.5 feet taller at event C (turnaround) and 5 feet
taller at event D.
O'Barr comments:
And all this is music to my ears! This is exactly as the
ether does this, and so it has to be correct! Thank you for
doing it correct!
O'Barr wrote:
>Will the traveling twin know that something physically
>occurred at this specific point, and at no other point???
McCullough wrote:
Sorry, I don't know what point you are talking about.
But no matter. What physically happens is that each
plant grows 1 foot for each year of proper time. The
twins travel so that one twin gets to the return point
in just 5 years proper time, while the other twin gets
to the same (spacetime) point in 10 years proper time.
One twin took a "shortcut". That's all.
O'Barr comments:
There is no need to get confused. Most SR experts use just
their math, and in the twin paradox, they will leave and pick
up the traveling twin at any arbitrary point they wish! When
this is done, then there are physical jumps being done to the
traveling twin, in addition to the coordinate jumps! Trees and
planets and moons in their obits (besides the twin and his
clocks) all do physically impossible things in most `paradox of
the twins' renditions. In your rendition, you follow it all
the way, and do it correct. Now to really do it in a full
treatment, you could consider what happened to the star that
was there where the turn-around occurs. What did it do, when
the twin first started out, etc.
O'Barr wrote:
>Do you, as an SR expert, know that something would be
>physically true at this point??? And then as soon as
>the traveling twin turns around, take the same picture
>again, and what do you see?
McCullough wrote:
You have to explain to me how the travelling twin can take a
picture of something that takes place at a different place and
a different time. The best he can do is take picture of what
the other twin was like at some time in the past (the time at
which the light left the stay-at-home twin).
O'Barr comments:
All I was trying to point out was that if the traveling twin
took a picture of himself and his tree at the point just before
he turned around, he and his tree would physically be exactly
the same as the picture taken just after they turned around.
This is the only `turn around' point where this physical match
will occur. In other `paradox of the twins' problems, they
follow the twin out to one point, and return the twin from some
other point, where the before and after pictures would be
physically different, and thus their example would be
physically impossible! They of course get the final correct
math answer, but their description of what occurred was junk!
O'Barr wrote:
>And what was real, and what was only a change in coordinates?
McCullough wrote:
What was real was that one twin took 10 years to get to point
D, while the other twin only took 5 years to get there.
O'Barr comments:
And of course in the ether, we know all this, which are only
math facts. We also know how it happened, and we know exactly
what physically happened in order for the math to result in the
answers given! Sorry about your poor theory!
>O'Barr wrote:
>>Did the stay at home twin feel this push?
>
>McCullough wrote:
> No. The "forces" that move the stay-at-home twin around are
> "fictitious" forces due to the use noninertial coordinate
> systems. In the same way, if you spin yourself around and
> around, it will seem that there is a centrifugal force
> flinging things outward and a coriolis force. But the rest
> of the world doesn't feel these forces (which is why they are
> called "fictitious"). In GR, Einstein proposed that gravity
> is a kind of fictitious force: a person in freefall doesn't
> feel it.
>
O'Barr wrote:
> It all depends on your frame of reference, doesn't it. In
> certain frames, these are forces that must be assumed to be
> there in order to get the correct answers! And thus in those
> frames, the forces are real.
McCullough wrote:
Okay. But fictitious forces are introduced by using a
noninertial *coordinate* system. Using a different coordinate
system, you get different fictitious forces.
O'Barr comments:
No arguments here! Thanks again for doing the twin paradox
correctly. Was it an accident?
GLOBARR
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
Ref: <9615...@sheol.org>
<20000620203354...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
<O'Barr note: the following is the out-of-context statements of
David Evens.>
>
Why do you assume that?
>
>
Why do you assume this?
>
>
>
Why do you assume this?
>
Why do you assume this?
>
>
do you?
>
>
>
Why do you assume this?
>
Why do you assume this?
>
Why do you assume this?
>
>
have heard of it before, you might want to go back to grade
school.
>
>
>
Why do you assume this?
>
to the obvious question of what sort of cave he's lived his
entire life in.
>
>
Why do you assume this?
>
O'Barr comments:
I hope I did not miss any of your great questions! The
only thing that comes to my mind is why did you assume that I
assumed any of these things? And if you really would like to
know anything above, why not give it a try yourself? Why don't
you list for us why we could, or could not, assume any of these
things? Then my answer could be addressed in a way that might
be of more benefit!
Thanks for reading!
GLOBARR
Edward Schaefer <em...@erols.com> wrote:
Ref: <8io45n$1n...@edrn.newsguy.com>
<20000620220011...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>
> ***** O'Barr special note: I do not often get the
> opportunity to praise the post of an SR expert. But this
> post by Daryl is a very special post! This is the first
> post, that I know of, made by an SR expert, who has tried to
> explain the paradox of the twins in a more correct way. He
> has tried to explain it in a physical way. I hope that one
> of these days he will be kind enough to explain it to
> everyone!!!!! *************
Schaefer wrote:
We are all trying to explain it in a physical way. The fact
the you do not consider some of what we describe physical does
not change that.
In any case your response was interesting:
O'Barr comments:
Since SR is a math theory, and not a physical theory, then
your abilities to explain anything physically is limited. The
ether is a physical theory, and thus, everything it does is
physical, and thus always has physical continuity, and makes
sense, and is logical, and can be explained. In SR, since it
is only math, you are free to say almost anything, and as long
as it does not affect your math, you can get away with it!
What a lousy theory!!!!!
> [Daryl McCullough wrote:]
> >
> > Here's the sequence of events:
> > A = the twins depart
> > B = the Earth twin celebrates his 5th birthday since
> > separating
> > C = the travelling twin turns around
> > D = the twins reunite
> >
> > From the point of view of the stay-at-home twin, the time
> > between A and C is 5 years, and the travelling twin ages
> > 2.5 years. The time between C and D is also 5 years, and
> > the travelling twin ages another 2.5 years. Events B and C
> > are simultaneous.
> > From the point of view of the travelling twin, during
> > turnaround, event B jumps from being 7.5 years in the
> > future of event C to being -7.5 years in the past of event
> > C. In the coordinate system of the return trip, the
> > elapsed time between event B and event D is 10 years.
> > During this time, the stay-at-home twin ages only 5 years.
> > So, both twins view the other as aging at half the
> > speed, except the discontinuous jump during turnaround.
O'Barr wrote:
> If we used your above approach, we will have one twin
> existing in more than one place at the same time.
Schaefer wrote:
That is not true. You do have the stay-at-home twin being seen
as passing through the same time *coordinate*, but he is doing
so in two different coordinate systems.
O'Barr comments:
Careful, now!!!! In SR, all frames are equally valid! In
the ether we only have one correct physical frame, and so there
are never any theoretical problems. But in SR, you are not
allowed to say which frame is `valid.' You have to accept all
your data, and thus you have to accept all frames as being
correct. Now if you want to change any of this, be my guest!
I would like to see you decide how to handle different frames,
and give SR rules as to how you correctly join your frames
together!!!!!!!!!!!!
O'Barr wrote (about physical jumps between frames):
> Now this is not physically possible, and neither are the
> jumps-in-times.
Schaefer wrote:
Correct. The stay-at-home twin cannot change his *physical*
position in spacetime due to the acceleration of the traveling
twin. That simply is not physically possible.
Remember what you wrote earlier about being able to read
maps? Well, when you accelerate, the map you use to interpret
spacetime changes. That is the *physical* effect that
occurred. It's as if you used a map with coordinates given in
miles north of Atlanta, and then once you got into North
Carolina started using a map with coordinates given in miles
north of Raleigh. You would find yourself passing through the
same coordinates a second time as you went from Atlanta to
Richmond, but your being at y=0 the second time does not mean
that you were at the same latitude a second time.
Seeing the stay-at-home twin at t''=0 is not the same as his
being at t=t'=0, where t is time in the stay-at-home twin's
frame, t' is time in the traveling twin's *outbound* frame, and
t'' is time in the traveling twin's *inbound* frame. Each
frame maps time to events differently. That's the key.
O'Barr comments:
But do you not understand what you just said. You said very
specifically that these changes were just changes in the
coordinates. You thus take the position that there are no real
changes. Yet, we know that there are real changes. Therefore,
however it might be true that changes in coordinate systems
could produce changes, what you explained has to be incomplete!
And a lie, if you continue to say these things! Changes in the
coordinates alone will not answer the problem we find in our
reality!
O'Barr wrote:
> You have not physically explained how all these things can
> really physically occur in any kind of a consistent way.
Schaefer wrote:
That is because you are interpreting the temporal coordinates
as being absolutes instead of just coordinates. The SAME EVENT
is being observed before and after turnaround. What has
changed is the *coordinates* of the event which is the stay-at-
home twin as viewed at turnaround, NOT the physical position of
that event itself.
O'Barr comments:
I am sure that you meant to say something important. But SR
will not allow you to say anything about an independent
physical position of anything outside of some reference frame.
Are you trying to talk like you are an ether convert? And if
you do have a change in coordinates, what is it that really
changes so that you can have this change in coordinates????
You can not answer this question, just as you cannot really
answer any question, because you have no physical base to your
math. You do not know what physically occurs so that your math
will work. Therefore, you have no real answers. You never
did have any answers, and you never will. Only the ether has
physical answers to such questions. And we will accept the
ether as being the superior theory because it has answers that
SR does not and cannot provide!!!!!!
Edward Schaefer
>
> You do not explain how
> to go from frame to frame and not violate physical continuity!
That is achieved by using the Lorentz Transformations.
> In the ether theory, where all physical acts occur in only one
> frame, there is never any violation of physical continuity!
There is also no physics involved either. After all, the observer being
in the aether frame is a special case. Unless you can explain the
paradox as viewed in a non-aether frame, you lack a coherent theory.
EMS
Edward Schaefer
>
> Edward Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > [Y]ou are interpreting the temporal coordinates
> > as being absolutes instead of just coordinates. The SAME EVENT
> > is being observed before and after turnaround. What has
> > changed is the *coordinates* of the event which is the stay-at-
> > home twin as viewed at turnaround, NOT the physical position of
> > that event itself.
>
> will not allow you to say anything about an independent
> physical position of anything outside of some reference frame.
Correct. If the travelling twin had not changed reference frames at the
turnaround event, the coordinates of the travelling twin as viewed by
him would not have changed. That is the physical position that you are
refering to.
However, that twin did change frames, and therefore the geometry of the
incoming light changed changed too. That made the twin's
parallactically measured distance increase, which IMO is how physical
distance is really measured in Relativity. So what changed in how the
twin looks, not how it is.
Along with this is also a change in how time is perceived, since if the
other is now farther away in space the emitted light must also come from
further away in time. This dove-tails with the time dilation seen in
the stay-at-home frame. The result is that the second twin sees that
first one age more, event though he appears to do so at a time-dilated
rate all that way back to their reunion.
BTW - LET has to call for a similar effect in a non-aether frame.
Otherwise it is not self-consistent.
EMS
David Evens
GLOBARR wrote:
[I have no support for ANYTHING I say.]
Well, that neatly eliminates you from the list of people who talk about
physics.
Daryl McCullough
>McCullough wrote:
>That's the way people learn, by analogy. The only way to
>understand effects in 4-dimensional Minkowsky space is by
>trying to understand first the analogous effect in 3-
>dimensional Euclidean space.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> The real situation is that it is physically impossible to
>physically explain it by physical 4-D,
No, it's not.
>You have no real physical explanation for 4-D, and no physical
>evidence for 4-D! Your science simply stink!!!
Sour grapes!
>McCullough wrote:
>Okay, if you want to use a map analogy, that's fine. You are
>in Tennessee, navigating according to a map of Tennessee. Your
>path takes you off the upper edge of the map. So you pull out
>a map of Kentucky. Now, according to this map, your position
>is on the *lower* edge. You didn't suddenly jump, you changed
>maps.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> What if I glued them together? Personally, you should know
>that this is a losing battle.
Yes, of course it is a losing battle. Anyone who is capable
of understanding special relativity already does. And you're
not (more because of your biases than for intellectual
ability, I think). But this newsgoup is all about losing
battles. The etherists are fighting a battle that has
already been lost for 95 years. The relativists are fighting
a different battle (to attempt to educate the etherists) which
is pretty much already lost, as well.
>Analogy is not science!
That's where you're completely wrong. Science is all about
analogy. Particularly, we set up an analogy between the real
world and a mathematical model of that world. If you can't
stomach analogies, if you can't bear mathematical abstractions,
then you can't do science (or at least not physics).
>McCullough wrote:
>Yes, yes, yes! Relativity is not about coordinates, it is about
>the reality that is *reflected* by those coordinates. The
>coordinates are the map. The reality is spacetime.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Now this seems interesting? If I recall spacetime
>descriptions, they were always given as a 4-D math function
>that included coordinates for space and time. Did I miss
>something?
Yes, you missed something. The coordinates are a way of
*labelling* points on the 4-D structure. It's a naming
scheme. Reality does not depend on what name you give
things (although you have to use *some* name or other,
if you are going to refer to particular points).
A sheet of paper is not a set of pairs of integers
(x,y). But every point on a sheet of paper can be
*labelled* by a pair of integers: (x = distance from
the left edge of the paper, y = distance from the
top edge of the paper).
>O'Barr comments:
> The problem I find is that in some SR problems (even the
>simplest of problems such as that of the paradox of the twins),
>more than one frame can be involved, and SR says that all
>frames (even simultaneously) are all equal in SR.
Right.
>And yet, they are not all physically the same. You do not explain how
>to go from frame to frame and not violate physical continuity!
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "go from frame to frame".
A frame is basically a coordinate system. Typically, people
choose a coordinate system in which they are themselves at
rest in the center (x=0, y=0, z=0). They also typically choose
inertial coordinate systems, because it is only in an inertial
coordinate system that you have the nice property that the
graph of the trajectory of an unaccelerated object is a straight
line. However, if an observer accelerates, then it is not
possible to use a single coordinate system in which both
properties are true (inertial + the observer is in the center).
You have to either use a noninertial coordinate system, or else
change coordinate systems when you accelerate.
>In the ether theory, where all physical acts occur in only one
>frame,
That's silly. Ether theory has different frames, just as
relativity does. Even if the ether exists, and even if I
am in motion with respect to the ether, that doesn't
prevent me from using a coordinate system in which
I am at rest. Think about how we describe locations
and times on Earth: we give lattitude, longitude, and
altitude. This coordinate system is not at rest with
respect to the ether.
And another silly thing about your statement: physical
actions don't take place *in* a frame. A physical action
takes place at an event (or at a set of events). Every
event exists in *every* frame. A choice of frames is
simply a choice of how to *describe* events. It doesn't
change the events.
>there is never any violation of physical continuity!
>Why is SR so dumb, and the ether so perfect?!!!!!
Why is fire so cold? Why is ice so hot? It's a mystery.
>McCullough wrote:
>According to SR, what "really happens" is what is
>true for any coordinate system. In the twin paradox,
>here are the facts that everyone agrees on:
> 1. There is an event (A) at which both twins are together,
> and they are the same age.
> 2. There is an event (C) at which one twin undergoes
> a sudden acceleration.
> 3. There is an event (D) at which the two twins reunite.
> 4. The proper time between events A and C is 2.5 years.
> 5. The proper time between events C and D is 2.5 years.
> 6. The proper time between events A and D is 10 years.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> It is easy to find `facts' that we can all agree on. The
>problem is in explaining these facts.
Ether theory *doesn't* explain the facts.
>The ether offers clear and understandable explanations.
It offers useless pseudo-explanations. Just-so stories
that provide comfort to the timid. It doesn't provide
any explanations that are of any use to science.
>SR offers nothing. All it offers are the math answers!
That's what science is about. It's about coming up with
mathematical models that are analogous to the physical
world.
>McCullough wrote:
>Fine. The only physical facts that are relevent to the
>twin paradox are these:
>
>1. At event A, the twins are the same age. Their relative
>velocity is .866 c.
>2. At event C, one twin undergoes acceleration. Afterwards
>his velocity relative to the other twin is again .866c, but
>in the opposite direction.
>3. At event D, the twins reunite.
>4. The proper time between A and C is 2.5 years.
>5. The proper time between C and D is 2.5 years.
>6. The proper time between A and D is 10 years.
>
>Those are all the physical facts that are involved.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Don't make my laugh! All you are doing above is re-iterating
>what you did the first time, and it is all you can do.
And that's all that *needs* to be done. There is no
need to add anything more.
>All you are doing is repeating the math results.
>You have no physical way to explain anything!
The only kind of explanation that is useful in
science is the reduction of observed physical
effects to a conceptually simple, widely-applicable
mathematical model.
>McCullough wrote:
>Sorry, I don't know what point you are talking about.
>But no matter. What physically happens is that each
>plant grows 1 foot for each year of proper time. The
>twins travel so that one twin gets to the return point
>in just 5 years proper time, while the other twin gets
>to the same (spacetime) point in 10 years proper time.
>One twin took a "shortcut". That's all.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> There is no need to get confused. Most SR experts use just
>their math, and in the twin paradox, they will leave and pick
>up the traveling twin at any arbitrary point they wish!
You are misunderstanding what they are doing.
>When this is done, then there are physical jumps being done to the
>traveling twin, in addition to the coordinate jumps!
You misunderstand. There are no physical jumps. Each twin
ages 1 year per year, very smoothly. The only jump is in
the travelling twin's view of the stay-at-home twin's
coordinates. This isn't a physical change. As I said,
the jump is only necessary if the travelling twin wants
to use (1) inertial coordinates, and (2) coordinates in
which he is himself at rest in the center. With these
two constraints, he is forced to change coordinate systems
when he turns around.
Of course, the travelling twin *could*
use some other coordinate system: he could use the coordinate
system of the stay-at-home twin, or else he could just stick
to the coordinate system in which the travelling twin
is at rest on the outbound journey. *Any* inertial
coordinate system could be used, and the results would
be the same, since reality doesn't depend on what coordinates
you use.
>Trees and planets and moons in their obits (besides the twin and his
>clocks) all do physically impossible things in most `paradox of
>the twins' renditions.
As I said, the strangeness comes from the travelling
twin switching coordinate systems mid-journey. Sticking
to just one inertial coordinate system, the description
doesn't sound so weird.
>McCullough wrote:
>You have to explain to me how the travelling twin can take a
>picture of something that takes place at a different place and
>a different time. The best he can do is take picture of what
>the other twin was like at some time in the past (the time at
>which the light left the stay-at-home twin).
>
>O'Barr comments:
> All I was trying to point out was that if the traveling twin
>took a picture of himself and his tree at the point just before
>he turned around, he and his tree would physically be exactly
>the same as the picture taken just after they turned around.
Right. But remember, in the noninertial coordinate system
in which the travelling twin is always at rest, it is the
*stay-at-home* twin who suddenly changes. In this weird
coordinate system, the stay-at-home twin ages by 5 years
during turnaround. But remember, coordinates are not
reality---they are just *labels*. In the noninertial
coordinate system of the travelling twin, the entire
5 years of aging of the stay-at-home twin is given the
same time label. That looks weird, but only if you
mistake labels for the reality.
>This is the only `turn around' point where this physical match
>will occur. In other `paradox of the twins' problems, they
>follow the twin out to one point, and return the twin from some
>other point, where the before and after pictures would be
>physically different, and thus their example would be
>physically impossible! They of course get the final correct
>math answer, but their description of what occurred was junk!
Well, I think that you can understand why the description
seems weird. It's like trying to picture the map of the
entire world on a flat piece of paper. Any way you do it
will cause distortions---either there will be gaps, or
some places will look stretched out compared with other
places.
>McCullough wrote:
>What was real was that one twin took 10 years to get to point
>D, while the other twin only took 5 years to get there.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> And of course in the ether, we know all this,
And so does SR. The most important quantity in both
SR and GR is the metric, which gives the elapsed
time for any trajectory through spacetime. In Galilean
relativity, the time to go from event A to event B
is independent of what path is taken. Time is thus
universal. In Special Relativity, the time to go from
event A to event B is path dependent. So time is different
for different paths.
>which are only math facts. We also know how it happened,
No, you don't. You have a cute story, but that story
doesn't have anything to do with reality.
>and we know exactly what physically happened
>in order for the math to result in the
>answers given!
No, you don't.
>Sorry about your poor theory!
My poor theory is the theory that kicked ether theory's butt.
Don't feel sorry for relativity. It's the winner, after all.
GLOBARR
<da...@cogentex.com> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> . . .
> The modern way that Special and General relativity are
> taught (see, for example, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's
>_Gravitation_) tends to deemphasize coordinates in favor of
>coordinate-independent quantities. The objective, observer-
>independent reality that SR and GR presupposes is called
>"spacetime", which is the arena in which everything takes
>place. The coordinate-independent quantities that are of
>interest in relativity are: events, scalars, vectors, tensors,
>etc.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> So I guess you do not agree with Throop! Throop was saying
>that there was a real reality down below the coordinates. You
>did not say this.
McCullough) wrote:
Yes, I did. The reality underlying the coordinates is
*spacetime*.
O'Barr comments:
But SR does not present spacetime as being physical. It is
only geometry!
GLOBARR
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
: SR is as dead as dead can be in terms of its philosophy! SR's
: philosophy can no longer be accepted by any thinking person.
: It is physically impossible.
Throop wrote:
Don't be stupid, GLOBARR. Minkowskian geometry is no more
"physically impossible" than Euclidean geometry. It's just
this sort of exageration and wrong-headed unjustified prejudice
that makes such a bad impression and reduces the chances you
will ever be taken seriously by anybody who can tell a hawk
from a handsaw, whatever the prevailing wind direction.
O'Barr comments:
Geometry is just math, and there are math concepts that
cannot physically be duplicated. I am not being wrong-headed.
I am not being prejudiced. I am not making any exaggerations!
You have a 4-D concept that has never been physically
established in any way what-so-ever! It has never been
established, and it never will, because it is physically
impossible! If there were such evidence, then the
ether could be scientifically ignored!
But the facts are all on the ether's side. Everything that
the ether requires is all realistic, doable, which means
physically possible. But SR requires things that have never
been physically established, never shown to be physically
possible. This has nothing to do with me! This is the
scientific position that we are in. You have the weaker
position. The ether has the superior position. And you cannot
blame this on me, or on my prejudices!!!!!
O'Barr wrote (about SR concepts):
: It has concepts that are unacceptable,
Throop wrote:
And here is the true GLOBARR agenda peeking through again.
People shouldn't use concepts GLOBARR finds "unacceptable".
O'Barr comments:
You are absolutely correct! No one should do or believe
anything just because I say it! We all have a brain! We all
know that there is something funny about back-in-time. It has
never been seen or observed, yet it appears in SR. We all know
that there is something funny about our measurements of light,
that it remains a constant on this earth, even though the earth
is constantly changing its motion through space. And as we
study the ether, these things becomes understandable, and
simple, with simple physical causes.
O'Barr wrote (about lack of physical evidence for 4-D):
: . . . no evidence has ever been seen to support it!
Throop wrote:
GLOBARR can squeeze more misrepresentation and misdirection
into a single half-sentence than anybody else I know of. "No
evidence to support it" he says, knowing full well that his
idea of what constitutes "evidence" and "support" differs from
that normally used in a scientific context.
O'Barr comments:
If there were direct physical evidence for 4-D spacetime
continuums, then where is this evidence? It would instantly
put the ether approach down the tubes!!!! But you have no
evidence. All evidence (absolutely all evidence that has so
far been seen on this earth, supports the ether concept, and
you have absolutely no evidence left over that solely supports
SR!
O'Barr wrote (about the ether approach replacing SR):
: And the ether approach can replace it perfectly! And on a
: scientific basis, you cannot argue otherwise!
Throop wrote:
And GLOBARR knows full well the reasons why, historically, the
ether approach was replaced by the SR appraoch. And, the SR
approach replaced it "perfectly", and on a scientific basis,
GLBOARR cannot argue otherwise. But he'll try to give the
impression there's something wrong with SR "scientifically".
O'Barr comments:
This very old act of replacing the ether with SR was not a
scientific act. It was impossible for it to have been a
scientific act, for what we now know! It was only a personal
choice! And now, in the year 2000, we can clearly see that
the ether approach is the superior approach! It has nothing to
do with me! This is the present position of the facts as we
now have them!
Throop wrote:
Sort of like the advertizements that say "no other product
works better!" (while carefully avoiding mention of the fact
that no other product works any worse, either).
So. Yes. "SR works no better than LET". But it works no
worse, and builds strong theories twelve ways LET does not.
O'Barr comments:
But your lie is now well understood! What you have said
above, to be scientific, is this: The math of SR is just as
good as the math of the ether! Where the ether is superior, is
in its physical understanding, in its physical base, that gives
limits to the math, and gives physical causes. Why are you so
dishonest, right here on this net, in the year 2000? You have
no right to be so dishonest that you cannot even say things in
a balanced, scientific way! Why is that??????
Throop wrote:
All of which GLOBARR is aware of. He just wants people to
stop thinking thoughts he finds "unacceptable".
O'Barr comments:
We should all stop having unacceptable thoughts! And you
should lead the way! How come you refuse to do this?????
O'Barr wrote:
::: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math
::: coordinates are not reality, that is fine with me!
Throop wrote:
:: It's not something I *want*. It's something I have observed
:: to be a fact.
O'Barr wrote:
: Please be sure that I support you in this!!!
Throop wrote:
So you've either changed your mind, or you are acknowledging
you were intentionally lying when you claimed "But in SR, every
thing that is real is in the coordinates".
Right?
O'Barr comments:
I do know that I sometimes make mistakes. But I am not
aware of any here. In the ether approach, the coordinates of
moving frames do not represent reality, since the rulers and
clocks in moving frames have been changed due to their motions
in the ether. Thus what they read is not perfect, but can be
used to get useful answers in the frame in which they exist.
In SR, all you have are the coordinates in each frame. And
in SR, these coordinates are always assumed to be valid, and
they are the only `reality' of position and time which exists
for the frame in which they are measured.
Now you appear to want to say this differently. To quote
you, you said:
*****
"In the ether approach, reality exists independently of its
description". The map is not the teritory. The word is not
the item it names. But then, this is just one of MANY things
the ether approach and SR have in common . . . .
****
So if you really believe SR is the same on this, then I
support you.
O'Barr wrote:
: But you were not supported in this by the last SR poster!
Throop wrote:
Ah. You are still lying, or deluded. OK. Business as usual.
O'Barr comments:
How about it SR experts? Will any of you SR experts confess
on any of this???? Why should I embarrass anyone?
O'Barr wrote:
: There is nothing wrong with the ether approach.
Throop wrote:
It's inconvenient and misleading. Demonstrably so.
It's been demonstrated several times, right in this newsgroup.
O'Barr comments:
If you want to use the mistakes made by people on this net
as proof that the ether is unsound, then I wonder what position
SR is in? I have seen some doozers!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
: The predictions of the ether are just as perfect as SR.
: They are the same mathematically!
Throop wrote:
But "they" (ether concepts) are less convenient to apply to
actual problems. As demonstrated several times by working
problems from the viewpoint of the ether, vs working them from
arbitrary lorentz-transformed frames.
Yes, you can derive the lorentz transforms from ether
concepts. They are "the same mathematically" as the SR
concepts from which the lorentz transforms can also be derived.
But *in* *actual* *practical* *use*, ether concepts are extra
baggage that only cause problems.
O'Barr comments:
And you are just fooling us! The math, being identical, can
in every way be used exactly the same! You are not being
honest with us, Throop! Again, why would anyone need to be
this way?????
Throop wrote:
:: The segregation of space and time in ether theories is what
:: leads to all the rube-goldberg-esque treatment of
:: measurement, and the consequent conclusion that measurement
:: of "real" quantities is impossible, which is necessary for
:: the ether approach to end up with "perfect" predictions.
O'Barr wrote:
: There is no `rube-goldberg-esque treatment of measurement' at
: all. I guess, to you, Einstein was using `rube-goldberg-
: esque treatment of measurement' when he proposed that all
: measurements will automatically be of the same form in all
: inertial frames? Now wasn't that just a `rube-goldberg'
: forced matching to what was being seen?
Throop wrote:
In short, no. Einstein is using the *opposite* of the Rube
Goldberg apprach.
Or, let me put it this way, without the amusing image of the
old Rube Goldberg cartoon gadgets. I'll use a different
amusing image, that of a traditional Zen saying.
In newtonian physics, a clock was just a clock, and a rod
was just a rod. But then there was electrodynamics, and things
got complicated. To deal with the findings of electrodynamics,
in LET a clock was no longer just a clock, and a rod was no
longer just a rod. Then Einstein came up with an insight, and
things got simpler again, just as simple as they had been under
Newton, and again a clock is just a clock, and a rod is just a
rod.
O'Barr comments:
You are sure good with words. You can talk about
analogies, about cartoons, about Zen, about amusing things, but
your science is terrible! In SR, clocks and rulers are so
complicated that SR cannot even tell us what they really do.
All you can tell us is what they measure in terms of math
measurements, but you cannot tell us what they really did in
order for them to measure what they measure! What a sick
belief you have to support!
O'Barr wrote:
::: How about the limits that can be applied to the math?
Throop wrote:
:: How about them?
O'Barr wrote:
: Are you saying you do not know what I mean by this?
Throop wrote:
Bingo. Tell the man what he's won, Johnny.
O'Barr comments:
I thought you didn't understand! And only a prejudicial
person would refuse to understand these simple points.
Throop wrote:
:: SR involves physical causes, effects, and explanations, is
:: extremely simple and understandable, logical, and involves
:: no paradoxes whatsoever.
O'Barr wrote:
: And this is such a lie!
Throop wrote:
Shrug. You can gesticulate and foam at the mouth al you want,
but it is not only not a lie, it's been demonstrated over and
over. SR concepts are simple, straightforward, easier to use
on practical problems, and the underlying concepts are every
bit as "physical" as those of the ether. (Note: "underlying
concepts"; not "the concepts required to account for light
propogation", the underlying concepts of the *theory* not
of the phenomena for which the theory provides a description.)
O'Barr comments:
Did I see all your `cheat' words? Thanks for the
clarification that SR cannot and does not provide for the
explanation for even the constant velocity of light! You are
the one playing word games, not me. The ether does provide
physical explanations and SR does not!
<remainder clipped for length considerations>
Daryl McCullough
>McCullough) wrote:
>Yes, I did. The reality underlying the coordinates is
>*spacetime*.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> But SR does not present spacetime as being physical. It is
>only geometry!
Geometry is physical.
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> O'Barr comments:
> If there were direct physical evidence for 4-D spacetime
> continuums, then where is this evidence?
O'Barr, do you know what phase space is? Why don't you object to it?
Newtonian mechanics lies in its own 4-D spacetime. Why don't you decry
that! Of course the 4-D spacetime of SR is not physical in the 3-D
sense, so you won't ever get direct physical evidence to support it.
Because it is just a model to aid humans in organizing the relationship
of events "spread out" in time as they transpire with respect to
multiple inertial reference frames.Why do you still have so much trouble
understanding such an unremarkable concept as a 4-D spacetime. Now,
whether or not that 4-D spacetime splits space and time the same for all
inertial reference frames or not is quite another matter.
All the same, SR does not require Minkowski spacetime models if that
makes you feel any better. Einstein's 1905 paper didn't use them at all.
Then again, one can't even get a direct physical proof of the model of
an ordinary object! You're confusing the relationship between the model
and the thing being modeled.
> O'Barr wrote:
> ::: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math
> ::: coordinates are not reality, that is fine with me!
Define "reality."
> O'Barr wrote:
> : There is nothing wrong with the ether approach.
There is to me! If the ether can't be modeled as a covariant field of
some sort, it is all wrong!
> O'Barr wrote:
> : The predictions of the ether are just as perfect as SR.
> : They are the same mathematically!
Then how can SR be wrong?!
O'Barr comments:
> You are sure good with words. You can talk about
> analogies, about cartoons, about Zen, about amusing things, but
> your science is terrible! In SR, clocks and rulers are so
> complicated that SR cannot even tell us what they really do.
> All you can tell us is what they measure in terms of math
> measurements, but you cannot tell us what they really did in
> order for them to measure what they measure! What a sick
> belief you have to support!
Only the measurements and the laws induced from them are of ANY MEANING
AT ALL IN PHYSICS. Explanations are too subjective. You can play natural
philosopher somewhere else. The sole objective goal of physics is to
produce physical law.
> O'Barr comments:
> Did I see all your `cheat' words? Thanks for the
> clarification that SR cannot and does not provide for the
> explanation for even the constant velocity of light!
How does LET "explain" the constancy of the speed of light for all
inertial observers?
Patrick
GLOBARR
> > [Y]ou are interpreting the temporal coordinates
> > as being absolutes instead of just coordinates. The SAME
> > EVENT is being observed before and after turnaround. What
> > has changed is the *coordinates* of the event which is the
> > stay-at- home twin as viewed at turnaround, NOT the
> > physical position of that event itself.
O'Barr comments:
In the ether, it is a given that the physical governs and
controls the math or the coordinates. This is true whether you
talk about SR `events,' or temporal coordinates, or the `view'
of any moving frame! If you have a tree that produces only one
bloom, it is the physical production or `physical event' of the
bloom that over-rides all other `measurements.' If you have a
real physical solar system in which all planets become lined
up, that physical event controls or over-rides all other
`measurements.' Therefore, when you do a paradox of the
twins, you have to decide on what are the physical events, and
then let them govern the description of the paradox. Most SR
experts do not even know what is being said!
If one twin really does age to a specific age in one leg of
his trip, then you must take him to that physical event. But
SR experts descriptions of the twin paradox has the traveling
twin going and coming at all kinds of points, other than the
physically correct point! Of which there is only one!!!!
I feel sorry for you SR experts!!!!! You cannot seem to
understand anything that is physical! All you have is just
your math! And when you get the correct answer, you think you
did every thing correct!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
> I am sure that you meant to say something important. But SR
> will not allow you to say anything about an independent
> physical position of anything outside of some reference
> frame.
Schaefer wrote:
Correct.
O'Barr comments:
Well what a surprise!
Schaefer wrote:
If the travelling twin had not changed reference frames at
the turnaround event, the coordinates of the travelling twin as
viewed by him would not have changed. That is the physical
position that you are referring to.
O'Barr comments:
The correct turn around point can be viewed as a physical
event. But mathematically, if you know the complete path of
the traveling twin, you can, on paper, transfer the traveling
twin from any one point on the outward path, to any correct
point on the return path (and by correct point I mean correct
both in space and in time), and get the final correct answer.
But the `paper' or math switch point is fictitious if it was
not the correct physical switch point! The fictitious
switching includes jumps in physical events that are physically
impossible. The jumps in coordinates can be lived with as long
as there are no physical jumps! SR, at its base, is not
concerned with anything being real or physical, and so SR
experts are very weak in these areas, and I have never seen a
formal discussion of this particular need in SR books!
Schaefer wrote:
However, that twin did change frames, and therefore the
geometry of the incoming light changed changed too. That made
the twin's parallactically measured distance increase, which
IMO is how physical distance is really measured in Relativity.
So what changed in how the twin looks, not how it is.
O'Barr comments:
In the ether, we know that the `parallactically measured
distance' increases (and/or decreases.) We know what is real,
and what is apparent, for all the reasons that exist in
reality. In SR, you do not allow for considering all the
reasons why distances and time can appear to change. You do
not try to separate out real changes from apparent changes!
What a sorry way to do business!
Schaefer wrote:
Along with this is also a change in how time is perceived,
since if the other is now farther away in space the emitted
light must also come from further away in time. This dove-
tails with the time dilation seen in the stay-at-home frame.
The result is that the second twin sees that first one age
more, event though he appears to do so at a time-dilated
rate all that way back to their reunion.
BTW - LET has to call for a similar effect in a non-aether
frame. Otherwise it is not self-consistent.
O'Barr comments:
The ether sees everything that SR sees! And everything that
SR measures! The real difference is that we understand what is
really going on to allow these things that are seen and
measured! And what is required to allow all these things to be
seen and measured is so simple that it can all occur in simple
3-D space and simple 1-D time!!!!! This makes the ether
approach superior! It has the power to explain. It has the
power to even explain SR. It has the power to explain in a
more simple form of physics! It is simply superior in all
ways!
Thanks!!!!!!
GLOBARR
> from frame to frame and not violate physical continuity!
Schaefer wrote:
That is achieved by using the Lorentz Transformations.
O'Barr comments:
Yes! In SR, you can use the absolute math (Lorentz
Transformations) to do it right, and you can use the absolute
math to do it wrong! I was not asking you to use or not use
the absolute math. I was saying that you should know how to
use it so that you do not make so many physical mistakes!
O'Barr wrote:
> In the ether theory, where all physical acts occur in only
> one frame, there is never any violation of physical
> continuity!
Schaefer wrote:
There is also no physics involved either. After all, the
observer being in the aether frame is a special case. Unless
you can explain the paradox as viewed in a non-aether frame,
you lack a coherent theory.
O'Barr comments:
Since the correct ether theory explains SR, then in the
correct ether theory, one is completely free to use the SR math
approach any time that method appears to be the easiest to use.
But at no time, in the correct ether approach, is anyone ever
allowed to use false SR philosophy. In the correct ether
approach, the physical can never be ignored!
GLOBARR
<da...@cogentex.com> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
This post is over six pages. Please forgive me, but I am
going to begin to hack!
>
O'Barr wrote:
>Analogy is not science!
McCullough wrote:
That's where you're completely wrong. Science is all about
analogy. Particularly, we set up an analogy between the real
world and a mathematical model of that world. If you can't
stomach analogies, if you can't bear mathematical
abstractions, then you can't do science (or at least not
physics).
O'Barr comments:
I have seen good analogies! But the problem here is not
that there aren't analogies, the problem is that the reality
required, once you go to the full math, is physically non-
existing! Your 4-D spacetime continuum is just a math aid,
and that is all it is! It is physically impossible for it to
be more than just a math aid!
>McCullough wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes! Relativity is not about coordinates, it is
> about the reality that is *reflected* by those coordinates.
> The coordinates are the map. The reality is spacetime.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Now this seems interesting? If I recall spacetime
> descriptions, they were always given as a 4-D math function
> that included coordinates for space and time. Did I miss
> something?
McCullough wrote:
Yes, you missed something. The coordinates are a way of
*labelling* points on the 4-D structure. It's a naming
scheme. Reality does not depend on what name you give
things (although you have to use *some* name or other,
if you are going to refer to particular points).
A sheet of paper is not a set of pairs of integers
(x,y). But every point on a sheet of paper can be
*labelled* by a pair of integers: (x = distance from
the left edge of the paper, y = distance from the
top edge of the paper).
O'Barr comments:
Well thanks for the 2-D lesson! But the trouble was not in
2-D. The problem was not even in 3-D. The problem was not
even in 4-D, if you only talk about math. The problem is in a
physical 4-D. And this is what is impossible! And this is
why the ether is superior. Because it can provide all answers
in simple 3-D, where physical reality can exist! SR has no
reality which can exist! All you have is a math aid, that
works in terms of answers, but has no physical base or
explanation to go with the math.
>O'Barr comments:
> The problem I find is that in some SR problems (even the
> simplest of problems such as that of the paradox of the
> twins), more than one frame can be involved, and SR says
> that all frames (even simultaneously) are all equal in SR.
McCullough wrote:
Right.
O'Barr wrote:
> And yet, they are not all physically the same. You do not
> explain how to go from frame to frame and not violate
> physical continuity!
>
> In the ether theory, where all physical acts occur in only
> one frame, there is never any violation of physical
> continuity!
McCullough wrote:
That's silly. Ether theory has different frames, just as
relativity does. Even if the ether exists, and even if I
am in motion with respect to the ether, that doesn't
prevent me from using a coordinate system in which
I am at rest. . . .
O'Barr comments:
What I was saying is that physically, there is only one
frame in which the true rates and lengths are established.
There is only one frame in which all events can thus be
unambiguously established! Thus (theoretically only at this
particular point), there are never any physical paradoxes, and
there are never any physical jumps in this one frame.
McCullough wrote:
And another silly thing about your statement: physical
actions don't take place *in* a frame. A physical action
takes place at an event (or at a set of events). Every
event exists in *every* frame. A choice of frames is
simply a choice of how to *describe* events. It doesn't
change the events.
O'Barr comments:
And now you are talking just like an ether expert! If only
you would try to find these independent events that you know
have to be, but in which you ignore in your SR math!
O'Barr wrote:
>Why is SR so dumb, and the ether so perfect?!!!!!
McCullough wrote:
Why is fire so cold? Why is ice so hot? It's a mystery.
O'Barr comments:
No mystery at all when you consider the ether approach!
>
McCullough wrote:
Ether theory *doesn't* explain the facts.
O'Barr wrote:
>The ether offers clear and understandable explanations.
McCullough wrote:
It offers useless pseudo-explanations. Just-so stories
that provide comfort to the timid. It doesn't provide
any explanations that are of any use to science.
O'Barr wrote:
>SR offers nothing. All it offers are the math answers!
McCullough wrote:
That's what science is about. It's about coming up with
mathematical models that are analogous to the physical
world.
>
The only kind of explanation that is useful in
science is the reduction of observed physical
effects to a conceptually simple, widely-applicable
mathematical model.
O'Barr comments:
And so the sum of the above series of statements is that a
mathematician only cares about math, as would be expected.
But real physics is more than just math, and we will no longer
allow mathematicians to control physics. The ether is
superior to SR, and this has nothing to do with math!
McCullough wrote (about the twin paradox):
As I said, the strangeness comes from the travelling
twin switching coordinate systems mid-journey. Sticking
to just one inertial coordinate system, the description
doesn't sound so weird.
O'Barr comments:
When you SR experts stay in one frame, you at least do not
usually violate physical reality. But when you jump frames,
you very often get physically lost. You do not often make
math mistakes, but you usually ignore the physical needs!
>
O'Barr wrote (about the paradox of the twins):
> This is the only `turn around' point where this physical
> match will occur. In other `paradox of the twins' problems,
> they follow the twin out to one point, and return the twin
> from some other point, where the before and after pictures
> would be physically different, and thus their example would
> be physically impossible! They of course get the final
> correct math answer, but their description of what occurred
> was junk!
McCullough wrote:
Well, I think that you can understand why the description
seems weird. It's like trying to picture the map of the
entire world on a flat piece of paper. Any way you do it
will cause distortions---either there will be gaps, or
some places will look stretched out compared with other
places.
O'Barr comments:
In the ether approach, there are no gaps. Every `jump' is
explained as a real change in the tools being used. In the
correct background, everything is perfectly seamless! In SR,
you have no background to insure anything being physically
seamless!
>
McCullough wrote:
. . . The most important quantity in both SR and GR is the
metric, which gives the elapsed time for any trajectory
through spacetime. In Galilean relativity, the time to go from
event A to event B is independent of what path is taken. Time
is thus universal. In Special Relativity, the time to go from
event A to event B is path dependent. So time is different
for different paths.
O'Barr comments:
In the ether, we know that the rates of clocks differ only
as the absolute speed through the ether differs. And this
simple `cause and effect' relationship is totally adequate to
explain everything that is seen and observed, if we include
length changes and man-made sync. In SR, as you said above,
you state that differences in path causes changes, but you do
not and you cannot state what these different paths are in
terms of anything physical! These different paths are only
math paths, geometry, and nothing more! And thus you have no
physical explanations for anything!!!!!
GLOBARR
Well, that neatly eliminates you from the list of people who
talk about physics.
I like short posts! And isn't it fun how we can interpret
anything we want. Now I am usually correct. Too bad that I
am not perfect!
But now that I have squirmed a little, let us see how we
could interpret the above:
[I have no support (from any SR expert) for ANYTHING I say.]
Now I like that!!!! It is too true, and so sad!!!!
And out of all that was said, look at what got picked up!
What does this say about the reader?
The ether is superior, and all we can talk about is how
silly O'Barr is! What has happened to our science?
Dennis McCarthy
>glo...@aol.com (Gerald L. O'Barr) says...
>
>>McCullough) wrote:
>>Yes, I did. The reality underlying the coordinates is
>>*spacetime*.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> But SR does not present spacetime as being physical. It is
>>only geometry!
>
Dennis: What O'Barr means is that geometry is simply a descriptive tool. There
are no real circles or triangles or points or lines. There are only material
objects with certain shapes--and that are moving in certain ways. We use
geometry to describe their shapes or the way they are moving. It is the
material objects that are "physical."
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>O'Barr comments:
> Well thanks for the 2-D lesson! But the trouble was not in
>2-D. The problem was not even in 3-D. The problem was not
>even in 4-D, if you only talk about math. The problem is in a
>physical 4-D. And this is what is impossible!
Nonsense. Both Special Relativity and ether theory use
4-D spacetime. It's just that ether theory separates
it into 3-D space plus 1-D time. Either way, it takes
4 numbers to specify an event.
>O'Barr comments:
> What I was saying is that physically, there is only one
>frame in which the true rates and lengths are established.
And I'm saying that's nonsense. There are an infinity of
different frames, even in ether theory. Calling measurements
in one frame "true" is just labelling. Physics doesn't
depend on what you *call* things.
>McCullough wrote:
>Ether theory *doesn't* explain the facts.
>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>The ether offers clear and understandable explanations.
>
>McCullough wrote:
>It offers useless pseudo-explanations. Just-so stories
>that provide comfort to the timid. It doesn't provide
>any explanations that are of any use to science.
>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>SR offers nothing. All it offers are the math answers!
And that's all you need.
Dennis McCarthy
>>McCullough wrote:
>>It offers useless pseudo-explanations. Just-so stories
>>that provide comfort to the timid.
Dennis; You mean timid people like Maxwell, Huygens, Sagnac, Lorentz, Ives,
Stokes, etc?
McCullough: It doesn't provide
>>any explanations that are of any use to science.
Dennis: Well, to someone who is under the impression that materialistic
explanations are of no use to science, that must seem true.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>>>SR offers nothing. All it offers are the math answers!
>
Dennis: Not if you actually want to understand phenomena or understand what
causes things to happen.
Dennis McCarthy
David Evens
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <39524D40...@technologist.com>
> David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> GLOBARR wrote:
> [I have no support for ANYTHING I say.]
>
> Evens wrote:
> Well, that neatly eliminates you from the list of people who
> talk about physics.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I like short posts! And isn't it fun how we can interpret
> anything we want. Now I am usually correct. Too bad that I
> am not perfect!
Why do you assume that you are correct?
> But now that I have squirmed a little, let us see how we
> could interpret the above:
> [I have no support (from any SR expert) for ANYTHING I say.]
> Now I like that!!!! It is too true, and so sad!!!!
Why do you assume that the fact that you cannot support your claims
means that you are correct?
> And out of all that was said, look at what got picked up!
> What does this say about the reader?
That you are very, very stupid, since you refused to even PRETEND to
support your assumptions.
> The ether is superior, and all we can talk about is how
> silly O'Barr is! What has happened to our science?
Why do you assume that you are correct because you cannot support your
claims?
GLOBARR
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
Ref: <39524D40...@technologist.com>
> (According to Evens) GLOBARR wrote:
> [I have no support for ANYTHING I say.]
> Then Evens wrote:
> Well, that neatly eliminates you from the list of people who
> talk about physics.
Gerald L O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> I like short posts! And isn't it fun how we can interpret
> anything we want. Now I am usually correct. Too bad that I
> am not perfect!
Evens wrote:
Why do you assume that you are correct?
O'Barr comments:
Assumed that I was correct about what? Can't you make a
complete statement? Are you afraid that you yourself might
make a mistake? What gives you the right to assume that I
assume? I think you must be the most frightened man around?
It looks like you are in need of help!
O'Barr wrote:
> But now that I have squirmed a little, let us see how we
> could interpret the above:
> [I have no support (from any SR expert) for ANYTHING I
> say.] Now I like that!!!! It is too true, and so sad!!!!
Evens wrote:
Why do you assume that the fact that you cannot support your
claims means that you are correct?
O'Barr comments:
And how did I assume this? Not to have something and cannot
have something are two different things! I personally think
that you are just like all SR experts, who just love to argue
about unimportant things! It takes time and attention away
from the physics that SR cannot handle!
O'Barr wrote:
> And out of all that was said, look at what got picked up!
> What does this say about the reader?
Evens wrote:
That you are very, very stupid, since you refused to even
PRETEND to support your assumptions.
O'Barr comments:
When the correct science is present, no one individual has
to support it! Correct science supports itself! I do not
have to support the ether, I do not have to pretend to support
it. I do not have to do anything! Your position is clearly
wrong. SR is sick. Even dead! It has been dead for so long
that it now even stinks! And you and all the other SR experts
will not even talk about the important scientific issues!
The ether is clearly superior, for a multitude of reasons,
and you will not submit to a single one! This can only be the
results of prejudice of the highest level!!!! Shame on you
all!!!!!!!!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
> The ether is superior, and all we can talk about is how
> silly O'Barr is! What has happened to our science?
Evens wrote:
Why do you assume that you are correct because you cannot
support your claims?
O'Barr comments:
And why are you interested in me, and not in the science?
Since you know you have lost the science, you now want to
attack me! To me, this is the greatest thing you could have
done for me, because, by doing this, you have just admitted to
me that you have lost the war!!!!!! I am so glad that you are
smart enough to know this!
Evans is correct. He cannot overcome the ether based on
science! He is a loser! And so are all the other SR experts.
And their SR FAQ is a scientific joke! It assumes (by
inference) that SR is supportable by science, when in truth all
evidence supports the ether approach. And they are not men
enough to say these obvious things!!!!!!!!!
The ether, by present-day demonstrations, by predictions,
by all test results, is the most well proved physical theory
that has ever existed. And the SR FAQ does not even mention
it!
And every modern-day SR expert will soon be seen to be
shameful, and unthinking, and unscientific. They will actually
be seen to be pitiful specimens of mankind, trying to deceive
themselves into believing things that are actually impossible.
They will be seen as ones who lived the biggest scientific lie
that has ever existed. Bigger than the earth is flat, or that
reality organized itself out of nothing! What a laugh! What a
tragedy! For them, and for us! For science, and for all
things that are good!
GLOBARR
<da...@cogentex.com> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: ...
McCullough wrote:
> Yes, I did. The reality underlying the coordinates is
> *spacetime*.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> But SR does not present spacetime as being physical. It
> is only geometry!
McCullough wrote:
Geometry is physical.
O'Barr comments:
Geometry is physical???? If I drop it on my toe, is it
going to hurt? Surely you did not go to the same school that
I went to!!!!
In SR, there is not one statement made that says that
geometry is physical. In SR, there is not one statement that
is made or required for math to be the cause, or for any of
the things said by modern-day SR experts! Modern-day experts
have gone crazy, and they do not just believe the math (as all
good people should do), they now worship the math as being
something real in itself! They have created a reality that
cannot physically exist, and yet they demand that it exists!
For this crime, they will pay heavily! They are being
unscientific, and they have caused great harm to be done.
There is no scientific justification for them to say that any
4-D spacetime continuum (which is just a math aid) is
physical. They have no scientific justification for saying
that back-in-time is part of our reality, or any of the things
present in SR math!
The ether theory, being a physical theory, being totally
realistic and doable and simple and exact and complete, is
superior to SR, and it will replace SR, and it will open up to
us greater and faster advancements in our science!
Thanks!!!!!
GLOBARR
> 2-D. The problem was not even in 3-D. The problem was not
> even in 4-D, if you only talk about math. The problem is in
> a physical 4-D. And this is what is impossible!
McCullough wrote:
Nonsense. Both Special Relativity and ether theory use
4-D spacetime. It's just that ether theory separates
it into 3-D space plus 1-D time. Either way, it takes
4 numbers to specify an event.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry. You are a liar! It does not matter how many numbers
it takes to specify an event! Some events are so complicated
that it might take hundreds of numbers to specify it. The
spacetime of modern-day SR experts is not just 4 numbers! It
is not just 3 numbers for space and 1 number for time. It is a
concept where one number can become part of the other numbers!
It is a concept that space can become replaced with time, and
time replaced by space, and that they thus form one reality
together! This is not the same as 3-D space and an independent
1-D time, and I think you know this! And thus I called you a
liar! You are going to have to repent! You are wrong, and
things will not be right until you come to understand just how
wrong you are! You cannot continue to be this way! There is
no reason for you to lie like this. Why be difficult? It is
not hard to just say what we know!!! And it is not hard to be
scientifically honest in all this!
The ether theory is a physical theory. SR is just a math
theory. The ether has physical limits. SR has no limits. The
ether presents to us physical causes. SR has no causes,
physical or otherwise. The ether is in simple space, and uses
simple physics. SR is in a reality that is so complicated that
it is physically impossible! And these points know no end!
The ether approach is simply superior, and it is superior in
every way possible!!!!!!!!!!!
>O'Barr comments:
> What I was saying is that physically, there is only one
> frame in which the true rates and lengths are established.
McCullough wrote:
And I'm saying that's nonsense. There are an infinity of
different frames, even in ether theory. Calling measurements
in one frame "true" is just labelling. Physics doesn't
depend on what you *call* things.
O'Barr comments:
In the ether, by theory, there is one frame, and one frame
only, that is, by theory, different, than all other frames.
For you to ignore this is again making you a liar! You lie
because you feel threatened! You have to make your point
because your very religion is at stake! Physics doesn't
depend on what you *call* things. But the ether theory demands
that you have one frame, and one frame only, in which all
objects exist, and only in which their absolute velocity is
determined! This is one very point that makes the ether
approach superior! And how you must hate it! But it gives you
no excuse to lie about it!
>McCullough wrote:
>Ether theory *doesn't* explain the facts.
>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>The ether offers clear and understandable explanations.
>
>McCullough wrote:
>It offers useless pseudo-explanations. Just-so stories
>that provide comfort to the timid. It doesn't provide
>any explanations that are of any use to science.
>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>SR offers nothing. All it offers are the math answers!
McCullough wrote:
And that's all you need.
O'Barr comments:
It is obvious that that is all you need. But true
physicists need much more. And guess what! We are going to
have more! Sorry that SR cannot do what is needed!
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote: . . .
> continuums, then where is this evidence?
Reany wrote:
O'Barr, do you know what phase space is? Why don't you object
to it? Newtonian mechanics lies in its own 4-D spacetime. Why
don't you decry that! Of course the 4-D spacetime of SR is not
physical in the 3-D sense, so you won't ever get direct
physical evidence to support it. Because it is just a model to
aid humans in organizing the relationship of events "spread
out" in time as they transpire with respect to multiple
inertial reference frames. Why do you still have so much
trouble understanding such an unremarkable concept as a 4-D
spacetime. Now, whether or not that 4-D spacetime splits space
and time the same for all inertial reference frames or not is
quite another matter.
O'Barr comments:
Your above remarks are very easy for me to take! As long as
you take the time and the trouble to recognize the differences
between math and physics, you cannot go wrong! You said: `Of
course the 4-D spacetime of SR is not physical in the 3-D
sense, so you won't ever get direct physical evidence to
support it.' This is a most perfect statement! Let me praise
you for saying it! You said: ` ... it is just a model to aid
humans in organizing the relationship of events ....' Another
most perfect statement! Again, let me praise you for being so
honest! The correct ether theory uses SR math. It can use 4-D
spacetime. But it will never call any of this math physical,
or the cause for what we see! Thank you for your honesty!
Reany wrote:
All the same, SR does not require Minkowski spacetime models if
that makes you feel any better. Einstein's 1905 paper didn't
use them at all.
O'Barr comments:
I am perfectly at home with Einstein. He even said that it
was unthinkable not to have an ether! And I am in full
agreement with this attitude!
Reany wrote:
Then again, one can't even get a direct physical proof of the
model of an ordinary object! You're confusing the relationship
between the model and the thing being modeled.
O'Barr comments:
There is a degree to which you might be correct. There
might really be limits to what we will eventually know. But we
do not know this yet! It is not right for us to assume this
yet. And we should not assume such things yet! It is not I,
but you, who should take care in what we are assuming! Could
you possibly understand what I am saying???? There is
something to what I am saying, and you would do good to try to
understand it!
> O'Barr wrote:
> ::: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math
> ::: coordinates are not reality, that is fine with me!
Reany wrote:
Define "reality."
O'Barr comments:
I'm sorry. I only have one lifetime!
We all know what reality means. At least good enough for us
to all communicate together.
> O'Barr wrote:
> : There is nothing wrong with the ether approach.
Reany wrote:
There is to me! If the ether can't be modeled as a covariant
field of some sort, it is all wrong!
O'Barr comments:
If you find a true need for a covariant `field,' then the
ether will provide it. The correct ether provides to us SR
math. Would SR math help you in any way?
> O'Barr wrote:
> : The predictions of the ether are just as perfect as SR.
> : They are the same mathematically!
Reany wrote:
Then how can SR be wrong?!
O'Barr comments:
It can't be wrong, in its math. In its appropriate area of
application, it is not wrong in its predictions. What is
wrong, are the SR experts, and their conceptions, and
philosophies! And we are going to correct these important
errors on this net!
O'Barr wrote:
> You are sure good with words. You can talk about
> analogies, about cartoons, about Zen, about amusing things,
> but your science is terrible! In SR, clocks and rulers are so
> complicated that SR cannot even tell us what they really do.
> All you can tell us is what they measure in terms of math
> measurements, but you cannot tell us what they really did in
> order for them to measure what they measure! What a sick
> belief you have to support!
Reany wrote:
Only the measurements and the laws induced from them are of ANY
MEANING AT ALL IN PHYSICS. Explanations are too subjective. You
can play natural philosopher somewhere else. The sole objective
goal of physics is to produce physical law.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry. You are talking just like a mathematician! The most
important job of a physicist is to explain. It is the most
difficult, but no true physicist would let that stop him. Your
position is terrible. For you, you have a built-in failure
attitude! And it stinks!
> O'Barr comments:
> Did I see all your `cheat' words? Thanks for the
> clarification that SR cannot and does not provide for the
> explanation for even the constant velocity of light!
Reany wrote:
How does LET "explain" the constancy of the speed of light for
all inertial observers?
O'Barr comments:
Are you really serious? SR was actually derived by assuming
a measurement system that was perfect (a system that was simple
Newtonian physics with c +/- v velocity relationships), and
then figuring out what would be required to have a moving
system also measure c for the same light signal. Do you
remember any of those days? And what was required was to have
certain changes in the lengths of moving rulers and in the
rates of moving clocks. That was all that was required. Do
you want me to go over such things? I cannot see why any of
this would be necessary. It is in almost every book I have
seen. In SR, the actual math you use is called the Lorentz
transforms. This is absolute math! In SR, you use absolute
math, so SR has to be compatible with absolute math. They are
the same. They are, in fact, the same theory.
Thanks!!!!
Daryl McCullough
says...
>McCullough wrote:
>Nonsense. Both Special Relativity and ether theory use
>4-D spacetime. It's just that ether theory separates
>it into 3-D space plus 1-D time. Either way, it takes
>4 numbers to specify an event.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Sorry. You are a liar! It does not matter how many numbers
>it takes to specify an event! Some events are so complicated
>that it might take hundreds of numbers to specify it. The
>spacetime of modern-day SR experts is not just 4 numbers! It
>is not just 3 numbers for space and 1 number for time. It is a
>concept where one number can become part of the other numbers!
>It is a concept that space can become replaced with time, and
>time replaced by space, and that they thus form one reality
>together! This is not the same as 3-D space and an independent
>1-D time, and I think you know this!
I'm saying that 4-D spacetime is just as physical as 3-D space
plus 1-D time.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Daryl McCullough
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: ...
>McCullough wrote:
>Geometry is physical.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Geometry is physical???? If I drop it on my toe, is it
>going to hurt???
Is that your definition of physical, that if you drop
it on your foot, it will hurt? How do go about dropping
the Earth on your foot?
You are confusing "physical" with "material". They aren't
the same thing. The physical includes matter, geometry, and
fields.
Arlin Brown
Patrick write: How does LET "explain" the constancy of the speed of
light for all inertial observers?
Arlin Jean: If LET doesn't do it to your satisfaction, look at AET
(Advanced Ether Theory). AET physically explains WHY absolute
relativistic effects exist. From this fact, the round trip speed of
light is shown to be equal to c for all observers, because only one
clock is required. The trouble starts when measuring the one-way speed
of light, because the answer depends on how separated clocks are set. SR
sets such clocks be assuming that the answer is c before the measurement
is made and then
claims that, lo and behold, OWLS (One Way Light Speed) is equal to c -
and they call this science. Everyone agrees on what the real CHANGE is
OWLS is upon a frame change. The sticking point is what the real OWLS is
- not what the change in the real OWLS is. AET answers these questions.
My paper on the subject is available for the asking by e-mail. It
physically and mathematically explains the MMX results and most
everything in SR. The real speed of light wrt the ether is always c in
free space. The maximum and minimum values for real OWLS is
c'=gg(c-v)=cc/(c+v) for all observers in free space.
---
Best,
Jeannie
Paul Stowe
>
>Arlin Jean: If LET doesn't do it to your satisfaction, look at
> AET (Advanced Ether Theory). AET physically explains
> WHY absolute relativistic effects exist. From this
> fact, the round trip speed of light is shown to be
> equal to c for all observers, because only one clock
> is required. The trouble starts when measuring the
> one-way speed of light, because the answer depends on
> how separated clocks are set. SR sets such clocks be
> assuming that the answer is c before the measurement
> is made and then claims that, lo and behold, OWLS
> (One Way Light Speed) is equal to c - and they call
> this science.
Best explanation I've seen. Good show Jeannie...
> Everyone agrees on what the real CHANGE is OWLS is
> upon a frame change. The sticking point is what the
> real OWLS is-not what the change in the real OWLS is.
> AET answers these questions. My paper on the subject
> is available for the asking by e-mail. It physically
> and mathematically explains the MMX results and most
> everything in SR. The real speed of light wrt the ether
> is always c in free space. The maximum and minimum
> values for real OWLS is c'=gg(c-v)=cc/(c+v) for all
> observers in free space.
This last is, alas, endlessly debatable. Physically OWLS is NEVER
isotropic for any known physical object, but like the medieval scholars
and their epicycles, we can set up a system that can pretend it is.
This is called the Special Theory of Relativity. And if you stick to
its protocols, it is unternally consistent and completely
unfalsifiable.
Paul Stowe
GLOBARR
da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Ref: <8iu3p1$2q...@edrn.newsguy.com>
<20000623163656...@ng-bh1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: ...
>McCullough wrote:
>Geometry is physical.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Geometry is physical???? If I drop it on my toe, is it
>going to hurt??? . . .
McCullough wrote:
Is that your definition of physical, that if you drop
it on your foot, it will hurt? How do go about dropping
the Earth on your foot?
You are confusing "physical" with "material". They aren't
the same thing. The physical includes matter, geometry, and
fields.
O'Barr comments:
I am sure glad you found something important in my last
post to comment on! Be it material, or physical, or real, or
something of substance, I do not care what you want to say I
am saying. Geometry, or any other form of math, is only
man-made thoughts. They have no reality of themselves. They
have been found to be useful because they often can be made
to mimic reality. Thus, the math of addition, although an
absolute necessity in almost all areas, has no existence in
reality. You cannot destroy it, because there is nothing to
destroy. You cannot weigh it, because there is nothing to
weigh. It is not because of addition that 2+2=4. But it
sure is nice that we have addition to express what we mean
and what we know! And the exact same thing is true with
geometry. It is sure useful and maybe even indispensable.
But it is not real (or physical or material.) And it cannot
cause anything to occur or not to occur! You are a believer
in Voodoo if you start to think in such childish ways!
Now let us look at my entire last post:
**************
Geometry is physical???? If I drop it on my toe, is it
going to hurt? Surely you did not go to the same school
that I went to!!!!
In SR, there is not one statement made that says that
geometry is physical. In SR, there is not one statement that
is made or required for math to be the cause, or for any of
the things said by modern-day SR experts! Modern-day experts
have gone crazy, and they do not just believe the math (as
all good people should do), they now worship the math as
being something real in itself! They have created a reality
that cannot physically exist, and yet they demand that it
exists! For this crime, they will pay heavily! They are
being unscientific, and they have caused great harm to be
done. There is no scientific justification for them to say
that any 4-D spacetime continuum (which is just a math aid)
is physical. They have no scientific justification for
saying that back-in-time is part of our reality, or any of
the things present in SR math!
The ether theory, being a physical theory, being totally
realistic and doable and simple and exact and complete, is
superior to SR, and it will replace SR, and it will open up
to us greater and faster advancements in our science!
******************
Now do you really think that you have responded to my post
by picking out the one thing as you did? I know that
definitions can be important. But what a shame to over-look
what was really said! Especially since the definition you
ask about has been explained! Even Dennis told us what it
meant!
Can I assume, by your lack of response, that you then
agree with all my other points? Do you really see and
understand that you have no physical evidence to believe in
4-D spacetime continuums? If so, let me congratulate you!
You are the first to agree to what every SR expert will be
forced to believe. Thank you for being first!
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that you SR experts
would allow yourselves to be seen to be so dumb. You were
given many opportunities to see all these things on your own.
It was not my intent to embarrass any of you. But you are
all so stubborn! Shame on you all!!!!!!!!
David Evens
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <39539A48...@technologist.com>
> David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > GLOBARR wrote:
> > [I have no support for ANYTHING I say.]
>
> > Then Evens wrote:
> > Well, that neatly eliminates you from the list of people who
> > talk about physics.
>
> Gerald L O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> > I like short posts! And isn't it fun how we can interpret
> > anything we want. Now I am usually correct. Too bad that I
> > am not perfect!
>
> Evens wrote:
> Why do you assume that you are correct?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Assumed that I was correct about what?
You ALWAYS assume that you are correct. Reality seems to totally
disinterest you.
> Can't you make a
> complete statement? Are you afraid that you yourself might
> make a mistake?
You mean, like YOU always do?
> What gives you the right to assume that I
> assume?
We KNOW you have no DATA to base things on, and you NEVER present
anything SUPPORTING you. Assumption is all you CAN have.
> I think you must be the most frightened man around?
Does it frighten you when you are shown to be wrong?
> It looks like you are in need of help!
Why do you assume that those who demonstrate that you are wrong need
help?
> O'Barr wrote:
> > But now that I have squirmed a little, let us see how we
> > could interpret the above:
> > [I have no support (from any SR expert) for ANYTHING I
> > say.] Now I like that!!!! It is too true, and so sad!!!!
>
> Evens wrote:
> Why do you assume that the fact that you cannot support your
> claims means that you are correct?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And how did I assume this?
You DEMONSTRATED an inability to support your claims when you REFUSED to
do so.
> Not to have something and cannot
> have something are two different things! I personally think
> that you are just like all SR experts, who just love to argue
> about unimportant things! It takes time and attention away
> from the physics that SR cannot handle!
What physics have you assumed SR cannot handle?
> O'Barr wrote:
> > And out of all that was said, look at what got picked up!
> > What does this say about the reader?
>
> Evens wrote:
> That you are very, very stupid, since you refused to even
> PRETEND to support your assumptions.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> When the correct science is present, no one individual has
> to support it!
Why do you assume that you are correct?
> Correct science supports itself! I do not
> have to support the ether, I do not have to pretend to support
> it.
Why do you assume that? You have been unable to find ANY indication
that it is correct or even USEFUL.
> I do not have to do anything! Your position is clearly
> wrong. SR is sick.
Why do you assume that?
> Even dead!
Why do you assume that?
> It has been dead for so long
> that it now even stinks!
Why do you assume that?
> And you and all the other SR experts
> will not even talk about the important scientific issues!
Why do you assume that?
> The ether is clearly superior, for a multitude of reasons,
Why do you assume that?
> and you will not submit to a single one! This can only be the
> results of prejudice of the highest level!!!!
Why do you assume that?
> Shame on you
> all!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> > The ether is superior, and all we can talk about is how
> > silly O'Barr is! What has happened to our science?
>
> Evens wrote:
> Why do you assume that you are correct because you cannot
> support your claims?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And why are you interested in me, and not in the science?
Why do you assume that your mistakes (which HAVE been dealt with, and
DEMONSTRATED to be mistakes, usually deliberate, and ALWAYS ignored (by
you)) are science?
> Since you know you have lost the science, you now want to
> attack me!
Why do you assume that you have not lost, despite the ABSENCE of
victories in debate over your errors?
> To me, this is the greatest thing you could have
> done for me, because, by doing this, you have just admitted to
> me that you have lost the war!!!!!!
Why do you assume that you have won when all that has happened is that
you have grown tired of having your (intentional) mistakes shown to be
wrong, and so stopped posting about physics ENTIRELY?
> I am so glad that you are
> smart enough to know this!
> Evans is correct.
Who ARE you talking about?
> He cannot overcome the ether based on
> science!
Why do you assume that there is an ether based on science?
> He is a loser! And so are all the other SR experts.
> And their SR FAQ is a scientific joke!
Why do you assume that there are ay problems in the FAQ that you do not
understand?
> It assumes (by
> inference) that SR is supportable by science, when in truth all
> evidence supports the ether approach.
Why do you assume that the experiments that you do not understand
support the theory you cannot describe in a useful way?
> And they are not men
> enough to say these obvious things!!!!!!!!!
Why do you assume that your mistakes are obviously correct?
> The ether, by present-day demonstrations, by predictions,
> by all test results, is the most well proved physical theory
> that has ever existed. And the SR FAQ does not even mention
> it!
Of course not, since it is such a GROSSLY INFERIOR model. If you were
familiar with ether theories, you could not avoid knowing that they
require a LARGE number of entirely ad hoc assumptions, each effect
having to be treated ENTIRELY separately.
> And every modern-day SR expert will soon be seen to be
> shameful, and unthinking, and unscientific.
Why do you assume that?
> They will actually
> be seen to be pitiful specimens of mankind, trying to deceive
> themselves into believing things that are actually impossible.
Why do you assume that?
> They will be seen as ones who lived the biggest scientific lie
> that has ever existed.
Why do you assume that?
> Bigger than the earth is flat, or that
> reality organized itself out of nothing! What a laugh! What a
> tragedy! For them, and for us! For science, and for all
> things that are good!
Why do you assume that?
JimJast
Physics is the following: each of the twins has its own "space and time
environment" (that's why it is called "relativity") and different things happen
in both: Stationary twin see his sister flying away, turning around, coming
back. It all takes a lot of time, no surprises except on return. The flying
twin flies away seeing her sister slowly aging (she is seeing time running
slower on the earth by Doppler effect), then when she turns around something
strange happens: she is seeing rate of time on the earth suddenly starting
running like crazy during the acceleration (which is a known effect of time
running faster in direction of acceleration in accelerating system,
proportionally to the acceleration and the distance from the observer to the
point at which the time rate is measured: that's why the effect makes an
impression that it is due to velocity, which is integral of acceleration:
mathematically it is the same number but physically it is acceleration, that's
why it looks symmetric if you look at velocity but it is not if you look at
acceleration). Then while the flying sister is returning to the earth, she is
seeing her sister on the earth aging fast (she is seeing time running faster on
the earth by Doppler effect). When she comes to the earth it turns out that she
is younger than her sister. Detailed analysis shows that flying sister had this
acceleration period (except others during her flight) when time on the earth
run faster in flying sister's environment than v.v., which has no corresponding
period in stationary sister's experience (and who therefore might have more
periods than her flying sister). So, despite Doppler time shifts cancelling
out, the difference in age due to acceleration of the traveling sister remains
forever (unless the stationary sister takes also such a trip later).
Jim
Wayne Throop
::: It is physically impossible.
:: Don't be stupid, GLOBARR. Minkowskian geometry is no more "physically
:: impossible" than Euclidean geometry.
: glo...@aol.com (GLOBARR)
: Geometry is just math, and there are math concepts that cannot
: physically be duplicated.
But, of course, minkowskian geometry is not one of these "math concepts",
since minkowskian geometry exactly matches what physical happens,
as GLOBARR himself admits.
So, my advice remains the same: don't be stupid.
SR's "philosophy" in a nutshell is that minkowski geometry
is a model of reality, in the same way that euclidean geometry is.
There is nothing "impossible" about minkowskian geometry as
a model of reality; nothing "impossible" in what is "physical"
having minkowskian structure rather than euclidean.
:: And here is the true GLOBARR agenda peeking through again.
:: People shouldn't use concepts GLOBARR finds "unacceptable".
: You are absolutely correct!
Glad to see you finally admit it.
Even though you try to backpedal in the next sentence,
and claim people should think for themselves, and people shouldn't
think one way or another because GLOBARR says so.
But the truths is clear. GLOBARR decides what is unacceptable.
And then he tries to bully, ridicule, or trick people into
avoiding these unacceptable thoughts. Not by persuasion,
not by appeal to reason, but by playing on conjured peer
pressure; don't be the last one to give up SR, or you'll
be laughed at; if you believe in SR you are irrational,
LET is "just as perfect", and so on.
In short, as I said, bullying, ridicule, and trickery.
All just because GLOBARR says so, just because GLOBARR
finds SR concepts "unacceptable".
: And as we study the ether, these things becomes understandable, and
: simple, with simple physical causes.
"These things" are already undestandable, and with simple physical causes,
WITHOUT needing to suppose there's an ether. Which is, of course, the
reason why people stopped "studying the ether". It doesn't pay it's way,
inspiration-for-the-effort-wise.
: If there were direct physical evidence for 4-D spacetime continuums,
: then where is this evidence?
Same place the "direct physical evidence" of the ether is.
::::: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math
::::: coordinates are not reality, that is fine with me!
:::: It's not something I *want*. It's something I have observed
:::: to be a fact.
::: Please be sure that I support you in this!!!
:: So you've either changed your mind, or you are acknowledging
:: you were intentionally lying when you claimed "But in SR, every
:: thing that is real is in the coordinates".
:: Right?
: I do know that I sometimes make mistakes. But I am not aware of any
: here. In the ether approach, the coordinates of moving frames do not
: represent reality, since the rulers and clocks in moving frames have
: been changed due to their motions in the ether.
WHich is, of course, a com plete non-sequitur,
and has nothing to do with the conversation that preceeded it.
Just look at the sequence, folks; the ONLY way GLOBARR's paragraph
is related to what it purports to respond to, is that both
sort-of-mention "coordinates" and "reality".
"Focus, Pinky! Focus!" The point here is that GLOBARR
is spreading falsehoods about "SR experts". And seems to
be very reluctant to acknowledge that he was either mistaken,
or duplicitous.
:: But "they" (ether concepts) are less convenient to apply to actual
:: problems. As demonstrated several times by working problems from the
:: viewpoint of the ether, vs working them from arbitrary
:: lorentz-transformed frames.
: And you are just fooling us! The math, being identical, can in every
: way be used exactly the same!
I didn't say the math was different.
I said the ether concepts are less convenient.
Again, GLOBARR isn't even responding to what I said; he's apparently
responding to the voices in his head or something; the other half of the
discussion he's participating in doesn't seem to be closely related to
the half of the discussion I'm actually supplying to him.
: Did I see all your `cheat' words? Thanks for the
: clarification that SR cannot and does not provide for the
: explanation for even the constant velocity of light!
See? He's imagining things.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
GLOBARR
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
Ref: <39539A48...@technologist.com>
<Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments at the end of Evens out-
of-context remarks, as listed by O'Barr>
Evens wrote:
You ALWAYS assume that you are correct. Reality seems to
totally disinterest you.
>
You mean, like YOU always do?
>
We KNOW you have no DATA to base things on, and you NEVER
present anything SUPPORTING you. Assumption is all you CAN
have.
>
Does it frighten you when you are shown to be wrong?
>
Why do you assume that those who demonstrate that you are
wrong need help?
>
You DEMONSTRATED an inability to support your claims when you
REFUSED to do so.
>
What physics have you assumed SR cannot handle?
>
Why do you assume that you are correct?
>
Why do you assume that? You have been unable to find ANY
indication that it is correct or even USEFUL.
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that your mistakes (which HAVE been dealt
with, and DEMONSTRATED to be mistakes, usually deliberate, and
ALWAYS ignored (by you)) are science?
>
Why do you assume that you have not lost, despite the ABSENCE
of victories in debate over your errors?
>
Why do you assume that you have won when all that has happened
is that you have grown tired of having your (intentional)
mistakes shown to be wrong, and so stopped posting about
physics ENTIRELY?
>
Who ARE you talking about?
>
Why do you assume that there is an ether based on science?
>
Why do you assume that there are ay problems in the FAQ that
you do not understand?
>
Why do you assume that the experiments that you do not
understand support the theory you cannot describe in a useful
way?
>
Why do you assume that your mistakes are obviously correct?
>
Of course not, since it is such a GROSSLY INFERIOR model. If
you were familiar with ether theories, you could not avoid
knowing that they require a LARGE number of entirely ad hoc
assumptions, each effect having to be treated ENTIRELY
separately.
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
>
Why do you assume that?
Now for O'Barr comments:
After about 22 questions, the majority just being `Why do
you assume that,' I see that you have no real desire to debate
anything. All you are doing is pretending to be involved in an
exchange with O'Barr, but all you are doing is taking up band-
width! I really feel sorry for you. In not one case do you
offer any math, or specific support to any of your criticisms.
As we enter into this new and stronger understanding of SR,
there will be no change in the math. We will understand things
differently, and we will explain things differently, and we
will present some things differently. We will say that the
measured speed of light is a constant in every frame, rather
than just say that the speed of light is a constant in every
frame. Such changes will be so small that for most people, the
changes will not even be noticed. But it will make us more
correct!
Whenever you see an SR expert mention ether theories, in the
plural, they do this to try to hide the fact that within all
these theories, there is a correct one. Because there have
been, over the years, many ether theories, then of course that
means that most, if not all, would have to be wrong. And so
taking the ether theories, as a group, there can be much to
criticize about `all these theories.' But it is unscientific
to do things this way! The correct ether theory will withstand
all `criticisms.' And the SR experts do not like to have such
a thing made known! They do not allow themselves to enter into
a specific discussion of the correct ether approach. They do
not allow themselves to make one-on-one comparisons between SR
and the correct ether approach. If they were truly scientific,
they would want to show both approaches, and exactly how they
each accomplish the same results.
If such things were routinely done, then we would all know
better what there is to choose between, when we choose to
accept the ether way, verses SR. Both provide us correct
results! Both are therefore scientific. Both are just as
useful, especially if explanations are accepted to be as
important as the actual answers.
Thanks!
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
[snip]
> Again, let me praise you for being so
> honest! The correct ether theory uses SR math. It can use 4-D
> spacetime. But it will never call any of this math physical,
> or the cause for what we see! Thank you for your honesty!
It does not require honesty to merely state what is consistent with my
operationalist/instrumentalist philosophy.
> Reany wrote:
> Define "reality."
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I'm sorry. I only have one lifetime!
> We all know what reality means. At least good enough for us
> to all communicate together.
I disagree. Please do not use a term which is supposed to have a
rigorous physical meaning until you can provide a definition for it.
Thanks.
> Reany wrote:
> There is to me! If the ether can't be modeled as a covariant
> field of some sort, it is all wrong!
>
> O'Barr comments:
> If you find a true need for a covariant `field,' then the
> ether will provide it. The correct ether provides to us SR
> math. Would SR math help you in any way?
Well then, if your ether theory is fully covariant in the SR sense, it
certainly isn't an absolute space.
> Reany wrote:
> Only the measurements and the laws induced from them are of ANY
> MEANING AT ALL IN PHYSICS. Explanations are too subjective. You
> can play natural philosopher somewhere else. The sole objective
> goal of physics is to produce physical law.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Sorry. You are talking just like a mathematician! The most
> important job of a physicist is to explain.
Who says? Why don't you tell us the technical definition of a
"scientific explanation." And would it matter to you if there might not
be a unique explanation of the physical world (which you appear to
believe)? Would it matter to you if the world could care less about our
anthropomorphic variables of length, time, mass, etc? Would you care
that we don't know a priori what if any method might exist to explain
the observable realm?
> It is the most
> difficult, but no true physicist would let that stop him. Your
> position is terrible. For you, you have a built-in failure
> attitude! And it stinks!
In my philosophy of physics I must start with only an metaphysics of
ordinary visible objects and observable events. Besides that I have near
complete freedom to set down axioms and make deductions therefrom for
testing against the observable realm, i.e., physicality. So my approach
is more secure against failure than your approach because I have less
metaphysical commitments to have to support.
> Reany wrote:
> How does LET "explain" the constancy of the speed of light for
> all inertial observers?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Are you really serious? SR was actually derived by assuming
> a measurement system that was perfect (a system that was simple
> Newtonian physics with c +/- v velocity relationships), and
> then figuring out what would be required to have a moving
> system also measure c for the same light signal. Do you
> remember any of those days?
It's all a fog%$#@!
> And what was required was to have
> certain changes in the lengths of moving rulers and in the
> rates of moving clocks. That was all that was required. Do
> you want me to go over such things?
You needn't go any further because I'm going to reveal my point right
now: My next question was going to be "how does the ether enforce this
contraction of matter?" Then no matter what you give as an answer I
would find another "how" or "why" question to throw at you. And I would
continue to assault you with these "how" or "why" questions until you
give up and finally say, "Well just because!" No expert could do any
better in the end! So, I have to inform you that your theory is
incomplete because in principle it can't explain everything. Of course,
it's the same for any formal theory. Einstein started with the Light
Principle because it was a short step to a theory of measurement, then a
theory of kinematics, then a theory of dynamics. His starting point was
more or less arbitrary. More, because he had great intellectual freedom
to set it down as he wanted. Less, because he had good reasons for the
choices he made.
Patrick
GLOBARR
<thr...@sheol.org> (Wayne Throop) wrote:
:: ... Minkowskian geometry is no more
:: "physically impossible" than Euclidean geometry.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
: Geometry is just math, and there are math concepts that
: cannot physically be duplicated.
Throop wrote:
But, of course, minkowskian geometry is not one of these
"math concepts", since minkowskian geometry exactly matches
what physical happens, as GLOBARR himself admits.
So, my advice remains the same: don't be stupid. SR's
"philosophy" in a nutshell is that minkowski geometry is a
model of reality, in the same way that Euclidean geometry is.
There is nothing "impossible" about minkowskian geometry as a
model of reality; nothing "impossible" in what is "physical"
having minkowskian structure rather than Euclidean.
O'Barr comments:
Here are the differences! In the physics that can use
Euclidean geometry, there is a known or an assumed reality
upon which the Euclidean geometry can be developed, and for
which the geometry can mimic. This known or assumed reality
is most perfect. In your SR Minkowskian geometry, there is no
known or detailed reality for the geometry to mimic. You have
no physical base upon which the geometric relationships can be
developed. Only the final results can be applied to things
that are physical! These are the differences.
It is just like Newton's law of gravity. There is no
known physical base upon which Newton's gravity law can be
based. The results of the equation can be applied to physical
things, but since there is no physical base to the equation
itself, it is called just a math theory. And thus we must
also call SR just a math theory!
Throop wrote:
:: And here is the true GLOBARR agenda peeking through again.
:: People shouldn't use concepts GLOBARR finds "unacceptable".
O'Barr wrote:
: You are absolutely correct!
Throop wrote:
Glad to see you finally admit it. Even though you try to
backpedal in the next sentence, and claim people should think
for themselves, and people shouldn't think one way or another
because GLOBARR says so.
O'Barr comments:
It is good to agree on things that are correct!
Throop wrote:
But the truths is clear. GLOBARR decides what is
unacceptable. And then he tries to bully, ridicule, or trick
people into avoiding these unacceptable thoughts. Not by
persuasion, not by appeal to reason, but by playing on
conjured peer pressure; don't be the last one to give up SR,
or you'll be laughed at; if you believe in SR you are
irrational, LET is "just as perfect", and so on.
O'Barr comments:
But at this point of time, all SR experts that have been on
this net during these discussions, have all said, at one time
or another, that LET is as perfect as SR in terms of its
predictions, or in its results! There was no bullying here!
There was no trickery. There was no ridicule! You are the
one who imagine things!!!! What is going on here is good
science. And good science is going to win over incorrect
science!
Throop wrote:
In short, as I said, bullying, ridicule, and trickery.
All just because GLOBARR says so, just because GLOBARR
finds SR concepts "unacceptable".
O'Barr comments:
I freely admit that I find SR concepts unacceptable. The
problem for you is, I am correct! They are not only
unacceptable to me, but they are also unacceptable in a full
scientific analysis! In a complete scientific analysis, the
ether approach is superior! And your attention should be on
the science, and not on what I might personally think!
O'Barr wrote:
: And as we study the ether, these things becomes
: understandable, and simple, with simple physical causes.
Throop wrote:
"These things" are already undestandable, and with simple
physical causes, WITHOUT needing to suppose there's an ether.
Which is, of course, the reason why people stopped "studying
the ether". It doesn't pay it's way, inspiration-for-the-
effort-wise.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry, but in SR, you have no physical causes at all. And
you have no physical understanding. You cannot make you math
the cause, and you cannot make your math the reality. For
these reasons, you lose! And the ether is superior!
O'Barr wrote:
: If there were direct physical evidence for 4-D spacetime
: continuums, then where is this evidence?
Throop wrote:
Same place the "direct physical evidence" of the ether is.
O'Barr comments:
There are a few ways in which your answer here is `wise.'
But may I point out some important differences. It is good
that you recognize that there is no direct evidence for 4-D
spacetime. In some cases, such lack of evidence is not always
bad. But let me explain a few things. Not only is there no
evidence for 4-D spacetime, there is no logic for it to even
be possible! You have a concept that no like thing has ever
been seen, or observed, or understood. By requiring people to
believe in SR, you have required them to believe in a thing
that has never been before! And to take such a step, is not
normally wise unless there are strong reasons to do so! With
the ether approach, there is no reason at all for us to take
such a strange and unbelievable step! And we need to
reassess what we have done!!!!!
With the ether, it is true that there are some ways in
which the ether has not been `detected.' But it is a lie to
say that it is not detected. In truth, all things are
`detected' in terms of their effects. And the effects of the
ether are seen in everything!!!! Therefore, you are being
unfair with the ether, and in what you think you have the
right to demand of it!
O'Barr wrote:
::::: If you want all SR experts to agree that SR math
::::: coordinates are not reality, that is fine with me!
Throop wrote:
:::: It's not something I *want*. It's something I have
:::: observed to be a fact.
O'Barr wrote:
::: Please be sure that I support you in this!!!
Throop wrote:
:: So you've either changed your mind, or you are
:: acknowledging you were intentionally lying when you claimed
:: "But in SR, every thing that is real is in the
:: coordinates". Right?
O'Barr wrote:
: I do know that I sometimes make mistakes. But I am not
: aware of any here. In the ether approach, the coordinates
: of moving frames do not represent reality, since the rulers
: and clocks in moving frames have been changed due to their
: motions in the ether.
Throop wrote:
WHich is, of course, a com plete non-sequitur, and has
nothing to do with the conversation that preceeded it. Just
look at the sequence, folks; the ONLY way GLOBARR's paragraph
is related to what it purports to respond to, is that both
sort-of-mention "coordinates" and "reality".
"Focus, Pinky! Focus!" The point here is that GLOBARR
is spreading falsehoods about "SR experts". And seems to
be very reluctant to acknowledge that he was either mistaken,
or duplicitous.
O'Barr comments:
Hold your horses, Throop! Just keep reading what you left
out!!!!!
<O'Barr puts in the complete statement referred to by Throop>
Start of repeat:
*****************************************
I do know that I sometimes make mistakes. But I am not
aware of any here. In the ether approach, the coordinates of
moving frames do not represent reality, since the rulers and
clocks in moving frames have been changed due to their motions
in the ether. Thus what they read is not perfect, but can be
used to get useful answers in the frame in which they exist.
In SR, all you have are the coordinates in each frame.
And in SR, these coordinates are always assumed to be valid,
and they are the only `reality' of position and time which
exists for the frame in which they are measured.
Now you appear to want to say this differently. To quote
you, you said:
*****
"In the ether approach, reality exists independently of its
description". The map is not the teritory. The word is not
the item it names. But then, this is just one of MANY things
the ether approach and SR have in common . . . .
****
So if you really believe SR is the same on this, then I
support you.
*********************************
End of repeat!
So now Throop. What did I fail to answer?
Throop wrote:
:: But "they" (ether concepts) are less convenient to apply to
:: actual problems. As demonstrated several times by working
:: problems from the viewpoint of the ether, vs working them
:: from arbitrary lorentz-transformed frames.
O'Barr wrote:
: And you are just fooling us! The math, being identical, can
: in every way be used exactly the same!
Throop wrote:
I didn't say the math was different.
I said the ether concepts are less convenient.
Again, GLOBARR isn't even responding to what I said; he's
apparently responding to the voices in his head or something;
the other half of the discussion he's participating in doesn't
seem to be closely related to the half of the discussion I'm
actually supplying to him.
O'Barr comments:
Well, if the math is the same, how is any calculation any
easier in one verse the other? In the ether, you have the
right to assume everything that you want to assume in SR. The
only difference is that you know what is going on, you know
where the limits are, and you do not have to constantly say
that the symmetry was broken, etc. It is actually easier in
the correct ether, because you actually have more options.
There really are times where the absolute approach is more
basic. But if not, you are still just as free to apply the
relative approach! We just have full understanding of it,
that is all!
O'Barr wrote:
: Did I see all your `cheat' words? Thanks for the
: clarification that SR cannot and does not provide for the
: explanation for even the constant velocity of light!
Throop wrote:
See? He's imagining things.
O'Barr comments:
I see that the ether approach is superior. The ether
approach does offer real physical causes for the constant
speed of light. SR does not. And you would do better by
acknowledging such obvious things!
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> Reany wrote:
> Who says? Why don't you tell us the technical definition of a
> "scientific explanation." And would it matter to you if there
> might not be a unique explanation of the physical world (which
> you appear to believe)? Would it matter to you if the world
> could care less about our anthropomorphic variables of length,
> time, mass, etc? Would you care that we don't know a priori
> what if any method might exist to explain the observable realm?
Please try to answer these questions. Avoiding these questions is
avoiding the heart of the debate and retiring to safe ground. The
central theme of your position is that the ether theory you accept is a
"better explanation" than SR for what's "really" happening. So please
define your terms: What constitutes an "explanation" in physics? How
does one judge which one of many explanations is the "best"? And, what
is "reality"? If you don't define these terms your whole argument is
vacuous! Just a bunch of meaningless words.
O'Barr comments:
> I fully understand your approach. And to you, anything that
> succeeds is just as good as any other thing that succeeds.
> Whether it is possible or understandable is not part of your
> requirements! And because of your `do not care' attitude, you
> often end up with junk!!!!!! And this is exactly what has
> happened to us with SR!!!! It is junk! And the ether can now
> be seen to be superior!!!!!!!
Oh yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> O'Barr comments:
> You are correct to point out that no physical theory has, so
> far, been complete!
No, O'Barr, I said that no formal theory can *ever* be a complete
explanation. Period!
> But we determine which theories are best by
> finding out which theories are able to take us the farthest
> into the unknown.
Have you considered the fact that your search for "which theories are
best" is an arbitrary value judgment. How can absolute truth be founded
on an arbitrary value judgment? And this notion of going farthest into
the "unknown" is sophistic. First, you assume the "real" existence of
something you admit is unknown. Second, you fail to understand that your
ether theory is far worse off in its ontology than just being unknown:
It's completely UNKNOWABLE!
You accuse me of being in love with the nothingness of pure mathematics
in place of "reality," which, by the way, you can't even define. Yet you
fail to appreciate how I avoid the dogmatism of preaching the existence
of chimerical things that you expect everyone else to treat as some kind
of god incarnate. My view is far more responsible. It tries to remain
honestly within the bounds of that which has empirical evidence of
existence, which is precious little actually.
I have no problem with people believing that an ether theory is a good
explanation of empirical data. But good explanations can never BE PROVED
to amount to REALITY!
Patrick
David Evens
GLOBARR wrote:
[NUMEROUS questions that GLOBARR has IGNORED AGAIN, deleted.]
> After about 22 questions, the majority just being `Why do
> you assume that,' I see that you have no real desire to debate
> anything. All you are doing is pretending to be involved in an
> exchange with O'Barr, but all you are doing is taking up band-
> width! I really feel sorry for you. In not one case do you
> offer any math, or specific support to any of your criticisms.
I see that you have IGNORED the ENTIRE post, so you hope that this
clumsy fabrication will allow you to escape the fact that your pretenses
have been shredded AGAIN.
> As we enter into this new and stronger understanding of SR,
> there will be no change in the math. We will understand things
> differently, and we will explain things differently, and we
> will present some things differently. We will say that the
> measured speed of light is a constant in every frame, rather
> than just say that the speed of light is a constant in every
> frame.
Why do you ASSUME that this is different?
> Such changes will be so small that for most people, the
> changes will not even be noticed. But it will make us more
> correct!
Why do you ASSUME that?
> Whenever you see an SR expert mention ether theories, in the
> plural, they do this to try to hide the fact that within all
> these theories, there is a correct one.
Why do you ASSUME that?
> Because there have
> been, over the years, many ether theories, then of course that
> means that most, if not all, would have to be wrong. And so
> taking the ether theories, as a group, there can be much to
> criticize about `all these theories.' But it is unscientific
> to do things this way!
Why do you ASSUME that?
> The correct ether theory will withstand
> all `criticisms.' And the SR experts do not like to have such
> a thing made known!
Why do you ASSUME that?
> They do not allow themselves to enter into
> a specific discussion of the correct ether approach. They do
> not allow themselves to make one-on-one comparisons between SR
> and the correct ether approach.
Why do you ASSUME that?
> If they were truly scientific,
> they would want to show both approaches, and exactly how they
> each accomplish the same results.
So, why do you ignore the fact that we HAVE the only such ether theory
ALREADY? We had it BEFORE SR, and when SR came along, it was compared
to SR, and the ether was found wanting: Wanting for PREDICTIVE POWER,
above all else.
> If such things were routinely done, then we would all know
> better what there is to choose between, when we choose to
> accept the ether way, verses SR. Both provide us correct
> results! Both are therefore scientific. Both are just as
> useful, especially if explanations are accepted to be as
> important as the actual answers.
So, you ADMIT that there can be no importance to the assumed absolutes
inherent in AL ether theories, but you STILL insist that useless
complexity that REMOVES predictive power is BETTER.
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
. . .
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote: . . .
> The correct ether theory uses SR math. It can use 4-D
> spacetime. But it will never call any of this math physical,
> or the cause for what we see! Thank you for your honesty!
Reany wrote:
It does not require honesty to merely state what is consistent
with my operationalist/instrumentalist philosophy.
> Reany wrote:
> Define "reality."
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I'm sorry. I only have one lifetime!
> We all know what reality means. At least good enough for
> us to all communicate together.
Reany wrote:
I disagree. Please do not use a term which is supposed to have
a rigorous physical meaning until you can provide a definition
for it. Thanks.
> Reany wrote:
> There is to me! If the ether can't be modeled as a covariant
> field of some sort, it is all wrong!
>
> O'Barr comments:
> If you find a true need for a covariant `field,' then the
> ether will provide it. The correct ether provides to us SR
> math. Would SR math help you in any way?
Reany wrote:
Well then, if your ether theory is fully covariant in the SR
sense, it certainly isn't an absolute space.
O'Barr comments:
Look at the cheat words fly!!!!! `Fully' covariant????
What you will find will be a math that will be sufficiently
covariant that you will be able to do everything that is seen
and observed! But no more than this!!!! And you will not have
to constantly be saying, the symmetry is broken! Because the
physics behind the math will be perfect, then the math will be
perfectly limited perfectly! And what a joy it will be!!!!!!!
> Reany wrote:
> Only the measurements and the laws induced from them are of
> ANY MEANING AT ALL IN PHYSICS. Explanations are too
> subjective. You can play natural philosopher somewhere else.
> The sole objective goal of physics is to produce physical
> law.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Sorry. You are talking just like a mathematician! The
> most important job of a physicist is to explain.
Reany wrote:
Who says? Why don't you tell us the technical definition of a
"scientific explanation." And would it matter to you if there
might not be a unique explanation of the physical world (which
you appear to believe)? Would it matter to you if the world
could care less about our anthropomorphic variables of length,
time, mass, etc? Would you care that we don't know a priori
what if any method might exist to explain the observable realm?
O'Barr comments:
It seems obvious that you do not care! And many
mathematicians do not care about such things, or so they say.
But I care, and I believe that all true physicists care!
O'Barr wrote (about having correct explanations):
> It is the most difficult (thing to do),
> but no true physicist would let that stop him. Your
> position is terrible. For you, you have a built-in failure
> attitude! And it stinks!
Reany wrote:
In my philosophy of physics I must start with only an
metaphysics of ordinary visible objects and observable events.
Besides that I have near complete freedom to set down axioms
and make deductions therefrom for testing against the
observable realm, i.e., physicality. So my approach is more
secure against failure than your approach because I have less
metaphysical commitments to have to support.
O'Barr comments:
I fully understand your approach. And to you, anything that
succeeds is just as good as any other thing that succeeds.
Whether it is possible or understandable is not part of your
requirements! And because of your `do not care' attitude, you
often end up with junk!!!!!! And this is exactly what has
happened to us with SR!!!! It is junk! And the ether can now
be seen to be superior!!!!!!!
> Reany wrote:
> How does LET "explain" the constancy of the speed of light
> for all inertial observers?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Are you really serious? SR was actually derived by
> assuming a measurement system that was perfect (a system that
> was simple Newtonian physics with c +/- v velocity
> relationships), and then figuring out what would be required
> to have a moving system also measure c for the same light
> signal. Do you remember any of those days?
Reany wrote:
It's all a fog%$#@!
O'Barr wrote:
> And what was required was to have
> certain changes in the lengths of moving rulers and in the
> rates of moving clocks. That was all that was required. Do
> you want me to go over such things?
Reany wrote:
You needn't go any further because I'm going to reveal my point
right now: My next question was going to be "how does the ether
enforce this contraction of matter?" Then no matter what you
give as an answer I would find another "how" or "why" question
to throw at you. And I would continue to assault you with these
"how" or "why" questions until you give up and finally say,
"Well just because!" No expert could do any better in the end!
So, I have to inform you that your theory is incomplete because
in principle it can't explain everything. Of course, it's the
same for any formal theory. Einstein started with the Light
Principle because it was a short step to a theory of
measurement, then a theory of kinematics, then a theory of
dynamics. His starting point was more or less arbitrary. More,
because he had great intellectual freedom to set it down as he
wanted. Less, because he had good reasons for the choices he
made.
O'Barr comments:
You are correct to point out that no physical theory has, so
far, been complete! But we determine which theories are best by
finding out which theories are able to take us the farthest
into the unknown. The ether theory does this, and gives us one
step farther into the unknown than SR. And thus the ether is
superior to SR.
Thank you for reading!!!!!
GLOBARR
<jim...@aol.com> (JimJast) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
>Wouldn't it be nice to know what physically happened!!!!!!!!!
O'Barr note to JimJast:
Many of us have different readers, and knowing `who said
what' is sometimes important. The post you posted did not show
who made the above statement on my reader. You should take
care to correct your posting so that everyone will know who
said what! In the above case, since it was only me who had
made the statement, then it is of course not real important.
But as a habit, you should consider what you are doing.
Thanks!!!!! (anyone who counted the number of exclamation
points would have known who wrote it!!!!!!!)
JimJast wrote:
Physics is the following: each of the twins has its own "space
and time environment" (that's why it is called "relativity")
and different things happen in both: Stationary twin see his
sister flying away, turning around, coming back. It all takes a
lot of time, no surprises except on return. The flying twin
flies away seeing her sister slowly aging (she is seeing time
running slower on the earth by Doppler effect), then when she
turns around something strange happens: she is seeing rate of
time on the earth suddenly starting running like crazy during
the acceleration (which is a known effect of time running
faster in direction of acceleration in accelerating system,
proportionally to the acceleration and the distance from the
observer to the point at which the time rate is measured:
that's why the effect makes an impression that it is due to
velocity, which is integral of acceleration: mathematically it
is the same number but physically it is acceleration, that's
why it looks symmetric if you look at velocity but it is not if
you look at acceleration). Then while the flying sister is
returning to the earth, she is seeing her sister on the earth
aging fast (she is seeing time running faster on the earth by
Doppler effect). When she comes to the earth it turns out that
she is younger than her sister. Detailed analysis shows that
flying sister had this acceleration period (except others
during her flight) when time on the earth run faster in flying
sister's environment than v.v., which has no corresponding
period in stationary sister's experience (and who therefore
might have more periods than her flying sister). So, despite
Doppler time shifts cancelling out, the difference in age due
to acceleration of the traveling sister remains forever (unless
the stationary sister takes also such a trip later).
O'Barr comments:
The Doppler approach is just as valid as any other approach.
In some cases it might be easier, at other times it might not
be the best. But if it is done correctly, it should provide
the same final result. You used thoughts above that are not
supportable, like the fastness or slowness seen in the counts
of the waves being received as an indication of the time rate
of the source. In the Doppler science, it is clear that the
rate at which we receive waves is a multiple function that
includes more than just the rate of time of the source.
Therefore, you have no right to say what the rate of the source
is, just by noting the rate of count being received! You are
missing an intermediate step that is critical, and must be
taken before you can make all of the conclusions being offered!
Wayne Throop
::: physically be duplicated.
:: But, of course, minkowskian geometry is not one of these "math
:: concepts", since minkowskian geometry exactly matches what physical
:: happens, as GLOBARR himself admits. [...]
:: SR's "philosophy" in a nutshell is that minkowski geometry is a model
:: of reality, in the same way that Euclidean geometry is.
: glo...@aol.com (GLOBARR)
: Here are the differences!
And then GLOBARR proceeds to list similarities instead:
: In the physics that can use Euclidean geometry, there is a known or an
: assumed reality upon which the Euclidean geometry can be developed,
: and for which the geometry can mimic. This known or assumed reality
: is most perfect. In your SR Minkowskian geometry, there is no known
: or detailed reality for the geometry to mimic.
GLOBARR is mistaken. There is no "known or detailed reality" for
Euclidean geometry to "mimic". That reality follows Euclidean rules is
simply an assumption; there is no way to deduce it from some physical
model. This is a smililarity between the two cases, not a difference
: But at this point of time, all SR experts that have been on this net
: during these discussions, have all said, at one time or another, that
: LET is as perfect as SR in terms of its predictions, or in its
: results! There was no bullying here!
: There was no trickery. There was no ridicule!
But the very use of the term "as perfect as SR" is, in fact, trickery,
as I have already discussed. And what GLOBARR wants is not that
LET be "as perfect", but that SR be overthrown, cast out, and
that people be forbidden to use it. It is these latter points
towards which he directs his bullying and ridicule.
Again, as I have already described. So GLOBARR's continued surreal
misinterpretation of the simplest statements, responding to them
with complete non-sequiturs, continues in full force.
: I freely admit that I find SR concepts unacceptable.
"It is good to agree on things that are correct!"
: The problem for you is, I am correct! They are not only unacceptable
: to me, but they are also unacceptable in a full scientific analysis!
: In a complete scientific analysis, the ether approach is superior!
Shrug. More bullying, and misrepresentation.
I've already pointed out exactly why the ether approach is NOT
superior in practical use, and why it fell into disuse.
: And your attention should be on the science, and not on what I might
: personally think!
Exactly. So, we throw out the places where GLOBARR simly gives
his opinion that SR is "unacceptable" and "superior" and other
things that GLOBARR *feels*, and what is left of GLOBARR's argument?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
: Sorry, but in SR, you have no physical causes at all.
You can lie all you want to. It's a free usenet.
: And the ether is superior!
You can give your unsupported opinions all you want to.
You yourself just pointed out: your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
What you haven't got is a case where the ether is *practically*,
*scientifically*, *functionally* a better theory. Quite the reverse.
::: If there were direct physical evidence for 4-D spacetime continuums,
::: then where is this evidence?
:: Same place the "direct physical evidence" of the ether is.
: With the ether, it is true that there are some ways in which the ether
: has not been `detected.' But it is a lie to say that it is not
: detected. In truth, all things are `detected' in terms of their
: effects.
Exactly. So, GLOBARR's claim that there's some deficiency
in spacetime as a physical model, compared to the ether,
is revealed by his own response to be a complete fraud and sham.
:: [.. a particular response of GLOBARR's ..]
:: is, of course, a complete non-sequitur, and has nothing to do with
:: the conversation that preceeded it.
: Hold your horses, Throop! Just keep reading what you left out!!!!!
: <O'Barr puts in the complete statement referred to by Throop>
And it remains completely unrelated to the conversation that preceeded it.
: So now Throop. What did I fail to answer?
Going on and on about how coordinates aren't required for
reality in ether theories is completely unrelated to the context
in which GLOBARR introduced his response. It is simply calculated
to distract from the fact that Yet Again GLOBARR has failed to
establish ANY deficiency in SR compared to ether theories,
though he tries mightily to give the impression that he has.
:: I didn't say the math was different.
:: I said the ether concepts are less convenient.
: Well, if the math is the same, how is any calculation any easier in
: one verse the other?
Can't you read simple english sentences?
What part didn't you understand?
And, as I've explained several times, the concepts are less
convenient, because if you carry the "calculation" on in the easiest way,
you aren't using any of the "ether concepts" GLOBARR is so fond of,
and you aren't using any of the "real" quantities he things are
so important. If you do the calculation the way the ether concepts
suggest it be done, you are doing it in an inefficient, wasteful,
inconvenient fashion. As soon as you apply math to make the ether-based
calculation more efficient, you end up throwing away all the quantities
based on the ether concept.
Now. What part do you STILL not understand? Do you really need to
review the various examples which demonstrated these points? Working
through this example in detail demonstrates the basic inconvenience of
the ether in a very simple case, that anybody can work through
and see for themselves.
http://sheol.org/throopw/problem1-for-mluttgens.gif
http://sheol.org/throopw/problem1-for-mluttgens-02.gif
I see that the ether approach is superior. The ether approach does
offer real physical causes for the constant speed of light.
The fact that GLOBARR uses the terms "real" and "physical"
for his own prejudiced assumptions about space and time
is not actually an advantage of ether theory. It's only
a repetition of GLOBARR's basic prejudice, which everybody
was well aware of going into this, and so didn't really
need the repitition.
Patrick Reany
Wayne Throop wrote:
> : glo...@aol.com (GLOBARR)
> : Here are the differences!
>
> And then GLOBARR proceeds to list similarities instead:
>
> : In the physics that can use Euclidean geometry, there is a known or an
> : assumed reality upon which the Euclidean geometry can be developed,
> : and for which the geometry can mimic.
'Reality' here is ill-defined. There is a set of observable events.
> This known or assumed reality
> : is most perfect. In your SR Minkowskian geometry, there is no known
> : or detailed reality for the geometry to mimic.
The "reality" you seem to think of is static, time independent, but physics
has to deal with the time evolution of systems of particles.
I have often said that every beginner student of mechanics should be taught
the Galilean transformation and to appreciate that Newtonian mechanics is just
his form of Galilean-relativistic theory. I think I'll now add one more
"new-age" concept into the mix for beginners: The 4-D spacetime diagram that
is used to model the time evolution of events transpiring in ordinary
Euclidean space of Newtonian mechanics. That is, 4-D Newtonian spacetime = 3-D
Euclidean space + absolute time dimension.
The problem is that O'Barr is comparing apples and oranges and getting very
confused. He should be comparing this 4-D Newtonian spacetime to the 4-D
Minkowski spacetime, not 3-D Euclidean space to 4-D Minkowski spacetime! It
turns out that if you sit quietly in your inertial reference frame and DO
NOTHING, you can get by just fine with Newtonian 4-D spacetime. But if you
want to make measurements and then compare those measurements against those
made by other inertial observers, you need Minkowski geometry to accurately
model the comparison, and you need the Lorentz-Einstein transformation
equations to accurately transform the results between the two frames
(especially if the two frames move at large relative speeds).
But why should it matter which frame you're in to determine the "real"
measurements of observable events? In spite of the fact that this question is
technically ambiguous, I'll try to answer it with a thought experiment.
Imagine that we have a dozen experimenters at equally spaced intervals along a
latitude line from the west coast to the east coast of the United States. Now
these experimenters all believe that the earth is flat. And they have a means
to communicate among themselves by instantaneous communications. Each
experimenter has one of a dozen identical sticks which he or she fixes into
the level ground at a right angle to the ground such that 1 meter of the stick
is exposed. Having concluded that local time can be "measured" during daylight
hours by using the shadow of the stick on the level ground, they have agreed
to perform an experiment "simultaneously" in which at a particular time
communicated to each of them by a 13th member, they then quickly "measure" the
shadow of the stick and communicate the results to all other members. They
then conclude that although their sundials are good for determining local
time, they are not good for direct determination of times at remote points.
They ask, Which of the local times is the TRUE global time?
To us it seems, or should seem, obvious what the problem is. They are asking
the wrong question, in a matter of speaking. The question they should be
asking should have nothing to do with metaphysics. They should instead be
asking how to model the situation to be able to make sense of any particular
measurement given any other particular measurement. One solution is to arrive
at some ad hoc transformation equation that correctly does this but offers no
visualization as an aid. Another way might be to re-evaluate the assumption
that the earth is flat and seek a "geometrical" solution. If they persevere in
this direction they will indeed find a model of the earth that fits the data
accurately. But does that mean that the earth is REALLY not flat. That is not
a fair question for science to decide. It is a value judgment made within the
natural philosophy of the individual.
If you disagree with me I presume you do so because you really, really, really
WANT science to be the ultimate arbiter of what is TRUE about the external
world. I don't. Once we give science that much power it becomes the target of
every tyrant who would get political control of science to control our freedom
of thought. Hasn't the lesson of Galileo been made clear?
Anyway, the analogy to Minkowski spacetime is this. The geometry of Minkowski
spacetime is better suited than is the geometry of Newtonian spacetime to
visualizing why and precisely how measurements of local times and lengths are
relative to the inertial reference frame. And why it doesn't make sense to
ask, Which is the TRUE time or length measurements assigned between to two
observable events. The difference between my thought experiment and SR
geometry is important to note: SR is a local theory of transformations, but
the thought experiment used widely separated spacial points in which frames
were attached, so to speak. Please take careful note of this non-analogous
aspect.
Patrick
JimJast
>knowing `who said what' is sometimes important.
JimJast wrote:
I thought that you want to know the solution to "twin paradox" rather than who
asked about the solution. But of course there is no big deal with writing also
who asked the question. Which I do from now on.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
>O'Barr comments:
> The Doppler approach is just as valid as any other approach.
>In some cases it might be easier, at other times it might not
>be the best. But if it is done correctly, it should provide
>the same final result. You used thoughts above that are not
>supportable, like the fastness or slowness seen in the counts
>of the waves being received as an indication of the time rate
>of the source.
JimJast wrote:
The point about the Doppler shift (interpreted as seeing the rate of time
passing elsewhere) was that for both twins it is identical and therefore it
cancels out regardless of the interpretation. So you don't need to analyse it.
This is the paradox: "everything looks the same to both twins". Of course the
solution is that that statement is false because of the change in time rate
caused by acceleration which is felt only by one twin. Only this part has to be
analyzed, as the only relevent part.
Jim
Xaonon
[snip]
> It is just like Newton's law of gravity. There is no
>known physical base upon which Newton's gravity law can be
>based. The results of the equation can be applied to physical
>things, but since there is no physical base to the equation
>itself, it is called just a math theory. And thus we must
>also call SR just a math theory!
And this is a problem how?
SR *works*, so obviously it's not flat-out wrong. You can disbelieve it until
you're blue in the face, but it still works regardless. At most, it's
incomplete, but saying things like "[SR] is physically impossible" like in a
previous post is just stupid.
--------------------
This month's inspiriational quote:
"Duj tIvoqtaH"
--------------------
<a href="http://xaonon.dreamwater.com/">Visit my website</a>
<a href="http://xaonon.dreamwater.com/photos/cones.html">Orange Cones!</a>
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> O'Barr comments:
> On the scientific level, everything we see seems to be
> affected by the ether. The ether, in reality, is the most well
> proved physical concept that has ever existed! Are you
> possibly believing your own lies??????
Apparently.
Patrick
GLOBARR
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote (in old post!):
> you assume that,' I see that you have no real desire to
> debate anything. All you are doing is pretending to be
> involved in an exchange with O'Barr, but all you are doing is
> your criticisms.
I see that you have IGNORED the ENTIRE post, ...
O'Barr comments:
Obviously I did not ignore the entire post, or how could you
be responding to the post you are responding to???? But surely
anyone can see that all you are doing is acting like a busy
bee, with nothing to say for yourself. If all you are doing is
just asking multitudes of questions, with no input of your own,
get lost!
Evens wrote: . . .
so you hope that this clumsy fabrication will allow you to
escape the fact that your pretenses have been shredded AGAIN.
O'Barr comments:
So let everything be shredded again. Why do you care? It
is not what gets shredded that should be important, but what
remains standing! And if you would like to be specific, that
would sure help. Just asking questions doesn't do a thing!
O'Barr wrote:
> As we enter into this new and stronger understanding of SR,
> there will be no change in the math. We will understand
> things differently, and we will explain things differently,
> and we will present some things differently. We will say
> that the measured speed of light is a constant in every
> frame, rather than just say that the speed of light is a
> constant in every frame.
Evens wrote:
Why do you ASSUME that this is different?
O'Barr wrote:
> Such changes will be so small that for most people, the
> changes will not even be noticed. But it will make us more
> correct!
Evens wrote:
Why do you ASSUME that?
O'Barr wrote:
> Whenever you see an SR expert mention ether theories, in the
> plural, they do this to try to hide the fact that within all
> these theories, there is a correct one.
Evens wrote:
Why do you ASSUME that?
O'Barr wrote:
> Because there have been, over the years,
> many ether theories, then of course that means that
> most, if not all, would have to be wrong. And so taking
> the ether theories, as a group, there can be much to
> criticize about `all these theories.' But it is
> unscientific to do things this way!
Evens wrote:
Why do you ASSUME that?
O'Barr wrote:
> The correct ether theory will withstand all
> `criticisms.' And the SR experts do not like
> to have such a thing made known!
Evens wrote:
Why do you ASSUME that?
> They do not allow themselves to enter into a specific
> discussion of the correct ether approach. They do not
> allow themselves to make one-on-one comparisons between
> SR and the correct ether approach.
Evens wrote:
Why do you ASSUME that?
> If they were truly scientific, they would
> want to show both approaches, and exactly how they
> each accomplish the same results.
Evens wrote:
So, why do you ignore the fact that we HAVE the only such ether
theory ALREADY? We had it BEFORE SR, and when SR came along,
it was compared to SR, and the ether was found wanting:
Wanting for PREDICTIVE POWER, above all else.
O'Barr comments:
It might be good if you would explain how two theories could
have the identical math, and one does not predict what the
other predicts. Could you provide an example?
It is my personal position that both LET (as accepted on
this net) and SR predict the same results. For what we now
know today, the decision to go with SR can now be only a
personal choice. It cannot be a scientific choice!
O'Barr wrote (about showing both ether and SR results):
> If such things were routinely done, then we would all know
> better what there is to choose between, when we choose to
> accept the ether way, verses SR. Both provide us correct
> results! Both are therefore scientific. Both are just as
> useful, especially if explanations are accepted to be as
> important as the actual answers.
Evens wrote:
So, you ADMIT that there can be no importance to the assumed
absolutes inherent in AL ether theories, but you STILL insist
that useless complexity that REMOVES predictive power is
BETTER.
O'Barr comments:
As I tried to say, the ether approach would provide physical
explanations. Once people got use to seeing these physical
explanations, and knowing how those explanations helped with
their understanding, then the benefit of the ether approach
would be better appreciated. Soon, people would sometimes
prefer the ether approach, just to reestablish logic and
understanding, but I would assume that most times most people
would just take SR and run with it. The problem is not that we
use SR. The problem is, SR experts will not allow the use of
the ether, even thought it is just as valid of a science as SR!
The SR experts are the ones who are prejudiced and need to
repent! The ether provides many things that are not seen in
SR, and it would help, not hinder our understandings.
GLOBARR
<xao...@aol.com> (Xaonon) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
[snip]
> It is just like Newton's law of gravity. There is no
> known physical base upon which Newton's gravity law can be
> based. The results of the equation can be applied to
> physical things, but since there is no physical base to the
> equation itself, it is called just a math theory. And thus
> we must also call SR just a math theory!
Xaonon wrote:
And this is a problem how?
O'Barr comments:
Well, Newton knew that his gravity theory was incomplete.
He knew that a more complete theory was needed, and that
a better theory, for his particular problem, would not have
force appear in an instantaneous way.
Math theories are known to be weak because there is
no physical understanding upon which they are based. When
a physical understanding is present, then the definition
and limits and the range of the math is assured. With SR,
you have no way to really say what happens when you go
faster than c. You cannot really say what really physically
happens in order for you to measure what you measure. You
have no way to say or explain or limit your math. All you
can do is give common sense answers, but by theory you can
not give anything!
Xaonon wrote:
SR *works*, so obviously it's not flat-out wrong. You can
disbelieve it until you're blue in the face, but it still
works regardless. At most, it's incomplete, but saying things
like "[SR] is physically impossible" like in a previous post
is just stupid.
O'Barr comments:
You are right! It was stupid of me to not be more clear. I
support SR math, and SR math answers. What I do not accept are
the reasons or explanations given by SR experts. What the SR
experts say is not correct. What they require is physically
impossible. All that we see and observed is not based upon
anything that needs 4-D spacetime. When they say such
things, they are being unscientific. We scientifically do
not know that the speed of light is actually a constant in
all reference frames. All that we really know is that the
measurement of its velocity is a constant.
I am sorry that you did not understand my separation
between SR math (which I fully accept) from SR philosophy
(which is sick and physically impossible.) Thanks!
GLOBARR
<thr...@sheol.org> (Wayne Throop) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
<several pages deleted!>
Then Throop wrote: . . . .
I see that the ether approach is superior. The ether approach
does offer real physical causes for the constant speed of
light. . . .
O'Barr comments: