Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

globarr_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: 15 Feb 2005 11:40:07 -0800

In <1108484659.721716.65280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Shevek <Shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>globarr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> shevek4 <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
>>>> Jack Sarfatti <sarfa...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> . . .
>
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> Were you asking this question for a reason?

Shevek wrote:
>Sorry about my confusing wording. My point is just
>that the local velocity of the ether is just another
>velocity with which to compare others to. It is no
>more "absolute" than any other velocity. To call it
>absolute is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion, I was
>asking for some verification of this or some
>argument as to why the ether frame is somehow
>"absolute" - and compared to what.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
/ remove 3 dots for e-mail
   A most important question! When you are only
doing math, and you are only interested in what you
will mathematically measure (that is, mathematically
measure in any SR measurement), then there is nothing
absolute involved in anything! And mathematically
the ether velocity will be just like any other
velocity, exactly as you say. And you can be just as
happy as you want to be with all this (but dumb!)
   Physically, the ether velocity is what allows you
to know what the real physical lengths are, and real
physical rates are, of everything being considered.
This is what is absolute, and it involves physical
absolutes, not mathematical measurement absolutes.
   The experts in SR do not want to separate their
thinking into SR math and LET physical. But this is
what must be done if we are going to be scientific.
In LET, the mathematically measured length of any
object can change for two reasons: The object itself
can change, or the tools being used to make the
measurement can change. (These changes in the tools
must of course include changes in the syncs between
the clocks being used.) Many problems in SR include
changes only in the object or only in changes in the
tools. Thus, when an SR expert says that there are
no real changes in an object, only a change in
perspective, they sometimes are correct. But just
changes in perspective alone cannot account for all
of what is seen in all measurements. Real changes in
objects must also occur, along with changes in the
tools, to account for all the effects that are
observed.
   Let me say this again: In SR, you can measure the
length of a fixed, inertial object, and get as many
different length values for this object as you use
unique reference frames to measure it. We have to
know that the real length of this inertial object
cannot be changing just because you choose to use a
different reference frame to measure it. The only
things that can be changing are changes in the tools
being used to do the measurement.
   With LET, with having an ether velocity, we would,
in this theory, insure that the real length of this
object did not change, and that only changes in the
tools occurred, as common sense would demand. But in
SR, such thoughts are not allowed. You are required
to believe that all these funny things occur, with no
real changes for anything, and yet we measure all
these un-allowed changes. It is plain sick to try to
understand SR, because there is no understand there,
on the physical level.

O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> Obviously, in any measurement frame, the
>> measurements in that frame will be exactly as said
>> in SR, and there will not be any direct evidence
>> of anything being absolute, but only relative.
>> The power of LET is not to change any of the
>> measurement results, but only to provide to us a
>> reasonable, logical, physically understandable
>> explanation of why we measure what is measured.
>> Did you wish to indicate anything different than
>> this?

Shevek wrote:
Agreed. The ether changes properties from point to
point in space.. different flow speeds, pressure
tensor, and more. These changes manifest themselves
as force fields. Nothing 'absolute' about it.

O'Barr comments:
  Except if there were a real ether, with real flow
and real speeds and real pressures, these would have
to have one and only one value at any one position in
space. And only LET allows this to happen, even on a
conceptual basis. SR is a weak theory, and does not
allow any kind of a reality based theory to exist.

> Shevek wrote:
>>>2) Did Krisher et al. rule out a LET local rest
>>>frame at rest with respect to the CMBR?
>
> O'Barr comments:
>> You will have to ask someone else about this. It
>> is reasonable to assume that as our measurements
>> extend to larger and larger portions of our
>>universe, that its average motion should be
>>expected to approach the rest frame of the ether.
>>But it sure would not have to do this. It would be
>>expected but could not be demanded.
>
Shevek wrote:
>That experiment tries to measure an ether flow speed
>through the earth. The "local" measurement in this
>case is local to the earth. The way I understand it
>the experiment ruled out a flow through the earth of
>300 km/s (as expected from CMBR motion), but was
>not accurate enough to rule out a flow of 30 km/s
>(as expected from orbital motion).

O'Barr comments:
   Say whatever you want to say. To really measure
our ether velocity would first of all take a
theoretically sound principle, and test with a
sensitivity that would be hopefully within our
rotation velocity range, but orbital velocity as a
minimum. I personally would like to suggest the
rotating bar experiment. But any test is better than
none. If we have any major absolute velocity at all,
either around our galaxy, or any other motion, then
our absolute velocity should stand out as we rotate
the direction of the experiment, if the experiment is
direction sensitive.

> shevek wrote:
>>>3) Do you feel an acceptance of the LET approach
>>>will require abandonment of SR? Even though you
>>>state the math is the same?
>>>
>>>I'm inclined to agree with Sarfatti - no
>>>abandonment required.
>
> O'Barr comments:
>> The real truth is, these two theories are the same
>> theory. No one needs to abandon the math of SR,
>> not even its approach.
>> Let us be clear on exactly what SR is, and how
>> good it is. SR is a correct math approach. It
>> works. It is not in contradiction to LET. SR
>> supports LET. LET supports SR. And all test
>> results support both SR and LET. And we should
>> appreciate the math relationships that SR uses.

Shevek wrote:
>Agreed, thank you.

O'Barr continues:
>> But to be scientific, we must also be able to see
>> the limitations in SR. We make ourselves fools if
>> we blindly worship SR. So we must freely and
>> quickly understand that SR is only math. It cannot
>> therefore say anything about physical things. It
>> is a very weak theory, being only math.
>> How is SR only math?
>> It only uses c as a math constant, and it uses the
>> requirement that all forms of the math must be the
>> same for every reference. Thus, we do not physical
>> understand what actually happens in SR. We do not
>> understand what physically occurs so that light is
>> always c, or why or how the math equations
>> maintain their same form. We just accept all
>> this.

Shevek wrote:
>Personally, I am happy with the math.

O'Barr comments:
   You should be happy with SR math. After all, it
is Lorentz transforms, so it has to be right! The
math of SR is absolute math, perfectly. It might not
have started at this point, but that is what it ended
up with, exactly!

Shevek wrote:
>What is "understanding", if not the ability to
>predict mathematically?

O'Barr comments:
   I can predict what my wife is going to say, but I
still do not understand her. Understanding is a very
valuable thing. And sometimes, we can understand and
still not be able to predict. You are taking a very
low road if all you want is to predict, but not
understand. To predict that a rock will fall, even
fall at a predictable rate, is great. But to
understand why the earth can attract us as it does is
even better than actually knowing the rate at which
it occurs.

Shevek wrote:
>I see some shortfalls with traditional SR approach,
>in that it predicts a null result for Krisher et al.
>for example. Also of course, there is the
>difficulty of combining the relativity theories with
>QM coherently.

O'Barr wrote:
>> But LET also works. And it is a physical
>>theory, which is more basic than SR, in that it
>>provides the physical base upon which the math of
>>SR is eventually derived. They thus end up being
>>the same theory. SR is the correct math, and LET
>>is the correct physics that goes with the correct
>>math.
>
>> Thanks for reading.

Shevek wrote:
>My pleasure. After studying SR for many years, I
>finally felt I had a better understanding of "why"
>after reading up on LET type theories.
>Keep up the good work - shevek

And thank you again!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
/ remove 3 dots for e-mail

Relevant Pages

  • The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
    ... The Proper understanding of Modern Physics. ... There is no desire to destroy the math of SR. ... The MMX disproved the ether. ... measurement, but we also had to then determine what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... Shevek wrote: ... absolutes, not mathematical measurement absolutes. ... thinking into SR math and LET physical. ... >>is the correct physics that goes with the correct ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... Shevek wrote: ... absolutes, not mathematical measurement absolutes. ... thinking into SR math and LET physical. ... >>is the correct physics that goes with the correct ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... Shevek wrote: ... absolutes, not mathematical measurement absolutes. ... thinking into SR math and LET physical. ... >>is the correct physics that goes with the correct ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)