Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

globarr_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/16/05 

Date: 15 Feb 2005 19:26:08 -0800

Shevek <shevek4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In
<1108484659.721716.65...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
>
>> Shevek <Shev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> . . .

Shevek wrote: . . .
> I agree with your thoughts on LET as superior to
>a pure SR approach, especially on the level of
>understanding.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
/ remove 3 dots for e-mail
   I am not sure if you know what you have just said
above. I say and agree with the above thoughts,
because I have studied it for over 30 years, and I
have a theory that fully supports these positions.
But in terms of present-day physics, you have just
committed hari kari! Do you really know what you are
saying above?

Shevek wrote: . . .
>Your argument sounds similar to that of Boltzmann
>and the early kinetic gas physicists. Sure, the
>laws of thermodynamics work; but why? Perhaps
>there are atoms, and we can derive the laws of
>thermodynamics. Similarly, the laws of SR and more
>should be derived from laws of constituent
>particles.. atoms of space or aether.

O'Barr comments:
   Perfect logic. Yes, mathematically, over a very
large range of variables, PV = nRT. And this is a
very useful math relationship. But it is only math.
Only until you put the atomic theory, the kinetic
theory of gases, to work, do you begin to understand
why and how it physically works. But once you
obtain the physical understanding of why the math
works, then you know what limits to expect, and what
meaning there is to these variables. And LET does
the exact same thing with SR. LET provides to us the
physical base to the math of SR. This cannot be
rejected by any thinking person.

Shevek wrote: . . .
>However, I still disagree that the theory allows for
>absolutes. The "real physical length" of an object
>depends on the definition. Something must be
>compared, a unit is needed, as everything is indeed
>relative. There simply is no way to measure the
>length of an isolated object - or the velocity of an
>isolated object. The nature of thought and
>language, requires adjectives to be comparative. I
>agree that local space-time conditions could provide
>a natural system to compare to, but not an absolute
>one.

O'Barr comments:
   Maybe you are trying too hard. Maybe you are
trying to make 'absolute' into something impossible.
All one really needs to do, is to understand that
there are real objects down below the measurements.
And these real objects are not too hard to understand
and to measure.
   The length value obtained in any SR frame, for any
object at rest in that frame, is its absolute value.
So there, we now know how to find these absolute
measurements. And the frame that is at rest in the
ether, will measure these same values just as
directly as any other frame. So we know exactly what
this special frame is going to measure, in terms of
length, without being in it.
   It is while one is in the rest frame of the ether,
however, that we know that what is being measured in
that frame is really what the object really is, at
the instant of being measured. So the only real
problem we have, in knowing all absolute things, is
in finding this rest frame. But even without knowing
this rest frame, the concept of things having a real
size, and a real rate, and a real sync, is important,
even if we never find it.
   How can any of this be a problem? We already know
the absolute size of atoms, and of things. We
already know the absolute rates of things. Do you
not understand all this? The only thing we do not
know is how far off are they now when we are
measuring them. And we do not know the ether's
velocity. Knowing the ether's velocity would tell us
everything else!

> <deletes by O'Barr>

> O'Barr wrote:
>> . . . 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: . . .
> Flow speeds with respect to what? With respect to
>the laboratory (or another single frame), you're
>right there must be one value. This could be viewed
>as a strength to SR - it doesn't require the
>knowledge of motion of the aether. Quite handy
>actually, as determining that motion is quite
>difficult.

O'Barr comments:
   Yes, SR is a measurement science, and as a
measurement science, it is most perfect. But in
telling us exactly what is going on in order for it
to physically work as a science is not provided to us
in SR. All that can be done is to guess or imagine
things, such as our reality being a 4-D spacetime
reality, and of course we have assumed and imagined
wrongly.

<deletes by O'Barr>

Shevek wrote: . . .
> I'll look into what the rotating bar experiment
>is . . . .

O'Barr comments:
   The rotating bar is very simple. Any round bar,
with length L, can be rotated so that its spin axis
is its axis of symmetry along its length. On the
face of each end of this bar, you can paint the hand
of a clock, each hand pointing in the exact same
direction (e.g., straight up.) These two hands will
rotate with the bar, always pointing in the same
direction as the bar rotates. In other words, these
two hands will keep perfect sync as the bar rotates,
as long as no stress exists in the bar. What we have
done, we have made each end of this bar into a clock,
and the sync between these two clocks do not have to
be 'adjusted' by man, they are held in sync by the
laws of nature.
   Now this is where things get interesting. If this
bar was being rotated in the rest frame of the ether,
everything would be perfect, and perfect sync would
exist no matter how fast the bar was rotated, etc.
But if this bar was in a frame with motion V in the
ether, V being in the direction of its length, then
the bar, in order to maintain SR sync, would have to
twist so that the time between the two ends would be
offset by approximately Lv/c^2.
   So, the question is, will this bar automatically
twist the exact amount necessary, as required by SR
sync? Some say it will. I say it will twist, but
only by about half of what is needed.
   It is important that this test be done. If I am
right, we will have a means of finding our ether
velocity. If I am wrong, then we have a way of
establishing SR sync, exactly. We would not have to
do it manually, or only approximate it with slow
motion sync.

O'Barr wrote:
>> 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:
>It is quite remarkable, beautiful in many ways.

O'Barr comments:
  The math is! But the physical explanation stinks!

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr comments:
You have made some very serious statements in
agreeing with me at the beginning of this post.
Please be sure of what you really meant to say, and
get back to me!

Thanks for responding.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
/ remove 3 dots for e-mail

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... trying to make 'absolute' into something impossible. ... object at rest in that frame, ... size, and a real rate, and a real sync, is important, ... The rotating bar is very simple. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... trying to make 'absolute' into something impossible. ... object at rest in that frame, ... size, and a real rate, and a real sync, is important, ... The rotating bar is very simple. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... trying to make 'absolute' into something impossible. ... object at rest in that frame, ... size, and a real rate, and a real sync, is important, ... The rotating bar is very simple. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... > trying to make 'absolute' into something impossible. ... > object at rest in that frame, ... > size, and a real rate, and a real sync, is important, ... > The rotating bar is very simple. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... > trying to make 'absolute' into something impossible. ... > object at rest in that frame, ... > size, and a real rate, and a real sync, is important, ... > The rotating bar is very simple. ...
    (sci.astro)