Re: The physical paradox of the twins.
From: Benno Muilwyk (benno_at_muilwijk-met-wyk.nl)
Date: 08/25/04
- Next message: Jim Black: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error."
- In reply to: Gerald L. O'Barr: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Next in thread: Gerald L. O'Barr: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Reply: Gerald L. O'Barr: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:53:17 +0200
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:e9b03d3c.0408241622.2965a4a7@posting.google.com...
> "Benno Muilwyk" <benno@muilwijk-met-wyk.nl> wrote in message
news:<412b53ab_1@news3.prserv.net>...
>
> In <412b53ab_1@news3.prserv.net>
> Benno Muilwyk <benno@muilwijk-met-wyk.nl> wrote:
> > . . .
>
> <deletes by O'Barr>
>
> Benno Muilwyk wrote:
> > ... You are comparing SR to LET and it's not always
> >clear to me whether you are describing something
> >from the SR point of view or from the LET point of
> >view. Sometimes it seems you are describing how
> >things are viewed in SR, but then that's not
> >accurate.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
> To be as exact as possible, we must understand
> that there is only one reality!
Yes. And there are many views and perceptions of that one and the same
reality!
> SR is the correct
> math that describes this reality! LET is the correct
> physics that describes this reality. Thus, SR and
> LET are the exact same theory, having the exact same
> math, predicting the exact same results. One of
> these theories cannot be destroyed without
> destruction of the other!
> If you have become confused about anything I have
> said, it is probably because you have not yet gotten
> the big picture!
>
> Benno Muilwyk wrote:
> >Before we can seriuously discuss a comparison
> >between SR and LET, we should first have a mutual
> >understanding how things are viewed in SR and LET
> >independently.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But you see, this cannot in truth be done! Since
> they are the same theory, they are not really
> independent. One cannot really be different than the
> other! They are not different and they are not
> independent and they support each other: They must
> both be true or they must both be false. There are
> no exceptions!
>
> Benno Muilwyk wrote:
> > ... Since the math is the same in both
> >theories, as you say, the theories must be
> >empirically equivalent and the differences can only
> >be in the interpretation of the math, that is the
> >physical meaning of the equations.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes! But all SR has is math. It has no physical
> interpretations at all!
I don't agree. Although I do agree that many text books can give that
impression.
However, (meta)physical interpretations do exist.
That's one of the things I'd like to discuss, if you're willing to be open
minded.
> SR starts out with math, and it ends with math.
> It assumes one math constant (c), and it assumes the
> same math equation form for every frame. And that is
> all it did. And that is all it does. And it, of
> course, then, can only end up with providing us only
> math answers as to what will be measured. What SR
> did, was it took the physical results of LET (c is a
> measured constant) and ignored the physical base upon
> which a constant c was accomplished!
This physical base is another thing I'like to discuss.
I'm very interested in what it is in more detail, according to you.
A link to a site where it is described would be very nice.
> Benno Muilwyk wrote:
> > In order to get a mutual understanding on the
> >(physical) interpretation of the math (and to avoid
> >any confusion which may be caused by mixing SR and
> >LET ideas in a single thread) I propose we set up
> >two new threads: one to discuss the SR view (without
> >comparing to LET) and another one to discuss the LET
> >view (without comparing to SR). Once we have a
> >mutual understanding on both views, we can start
> >comparing them. In the LET thread let us forget
> >about the SR view and in the SR thread let us forget
> >about LET. But in both threads let us be open
> >minded for each other's ideas and try to understand
> >the other's point of view before accepting or
> >rejecting it with reason.
> >
> >What do you think of my proposal?
> >Shall we give it a try?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> So if you go back and re-read what I said above,
> you can see how silly your desires are. You cannot
> really separate these two theories. And all you have
> in SR is math. There are no physical interpretations
> at all in SR. When all you have is math, any re-
> arranging of the math, any placing of the math into
> different dimensions, or into a different form, have
> nothing to do with anything physical. There is no
> such thing as a physical 4-D spacetime continuum.
That's a rather bold statement. What makes you think there isn't?
The fact that you don't think so, does not necessarily make it true.
You can't prove that there isn't. That is equally imposible as proving that
there is no such thing as an ether.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
LET is based on the assumption that ether exists.
But the math can also be mapped to an assumed physical spacetime.
And that's what many "SRians" do.
> All this 4-D math is, is a math aid. It is a math
> aid that works, but it has no physical meaning at
> all. It is physically impossible for anything
> physical to be 4-D.
Is (passage of) time not physical?
> SR math is beautiful. It is perfect math! It
> has to be all this because it is LET math! But SR
> experts are sick. They have no understanding of the
> differences between math and physics.
Maybe I should feel lucky I am no such expert?
Although I do have a pretty good understanding of both the math and at least
one way to map it to physical reality.
And I'd like to get a better understanding about other ways, starting with
LET.
> I believe they
> do not want to know the differences. They want the
> math to be all that is necessary or desired. And for
> this, they make themselves dumb, and uneducated, and
> unscientific!
That's another bold statement. Have you ever seriously considered the
possibility that "they" understand things that you don't?
That they might understand things that are not even mentioned any most or
all of the text books you have read?
After all, you are talking about experts here; what makes you think you know
it better than the real expert?
Are you such an expert yourself? Only when you know and understand at least
as much as the experts you are talking about, you have the right to say
these things.
> And we are going to change all this!
> We will no longer ignore LET. It is just as
> scientific as SR, and is in fact superior.
You keep saying this, but so far you have failed to show me why.
You say SR is math only without any physical interpretations and I don't
agree because I know of it least one.
You say that LET and SR share the same math and make the same measuring
predictions, but you also claim that SR predicts impossible jumps where LET
does not.
That looks like a contradiction to me, but I'm no expert, so I won't say you
are "dumb, and uneducated, and unscientific".
There might be something that you see and I don't, so I ask you to show my
that it is not really a contradiction and why.
I'm not dumb and uneducated, etc. so if you're right you should be able to
explain and I will understand.
But you'll have to do better (more scientific) than before. A link to a
good explanation could do.
And if you think you have already given the best (scientific) explanation
possible, just point me to it and I will review.
> Thanks for reading.
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>
As a general remark I would also like to say that any theory, view,
perception or interpretation of the reality is a valid possibility as long
as it is not disproved by actual and repeated measurements, no matter how
strange it may seem.
That does not take away that some may be preferred or even considered
superior over others, but even the least preferred and strangest ones remain
a possibility until proven otherwise.
An open mind remains required in good science, even on the strangest
possibilities.
Sometimes a strange idea appears not to be so strange after all, when it has
been given some deeper thoughts than would seem to be justified at first
sight.
Benno
- Next message: Jim Black: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error."
- In reply to: Gerald L. O'Barr: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Next in thread: Gerald L. O'Barr: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Reply: Gerald L. O'Barr: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
