Re: O'Barr comments on your SR FAQ.

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: 26 Dec 2004 18:08:39 -0800

globarr@yahoo.com wrote:
> In <1103897916.438188.38520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> Reany <r...@asu.edu> wrote:
> > . . .
>
> <deletes by O'Barr>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
> ------ (remove 3 dots for e-mail)
> Reany, we have talked before, and so there is no
> need to answer everything in your post. So let me
> address just one or two of the important points. You
> said:
>
> Reany wrote: . . .
> >The bottom line is that there are no true or false
> >definitions. Definitions are just made up things.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, made up, I guess, just like your theories.
> And you are really serious! Why don't you put out
> a new dictionary, made up of random definitions as
> made by a computer set to give random collection of
> words for each definition! This would really sell.
> The newest dictionary, with all the newest
> definitions!

The recipe for ice cream is made up too, but hardly random!

>
> Reany wrote:
> > ... you said that the issue you have against SR
> >isn't with the consistency of the conventional
> >definitions, but rather lies in their lack of
> >"reality" as YOU see reality.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> There really is a reality, Reany. And the value
> of any and all science lies in its ability to bring
> us closer to a complete and correct understanding of
> this reality.

How does science determine by general rule what is real and what is not
real? What is the necessary connection between this presumed "reality"
and human theories?

> The better we are able to understand
> this reality for what it really is, the better. And
> everyone (but you) understands this, and we
> understand this without having to say it, or be
> taught it.

Say something meaningful and maybe I will get it. Define "reality."

>
> Reany wrote:
> >QM is a principle theory much less Newtonian than
> >Einstein's SR ever was. That's what my point is.
> >Are you claiming that your at theory is consistent
> >with QM? (In as much as a frequency is associated to
> >a particle? So what about the photon is REALLY
> >vibrating?)
>
> O'Barr comments:
> I wish I knew everything, Reany. Obviously, I do
> not know very much. In the at theory, I am able to
> obtain particles that can produce effects that we
> would call a force field, which affect other
> particles around them. All this is able to be done
> with an approach much like what LeSage used, but my
> approach works, while LeSage's approach does not.
> All of this I can do on the computer, with the
> computer calculating the results of each collision,
> and keeping track of the final results, after
> hundreds of collisions have occurred. These 'force
> fields' are able to cause these particles to combine
> in various formations, somewhat as we see atoms do on
> our level.
> What is unique about these force fields (which we
> do not have in our world), is that some of these
> systems result in a translation mode within the
> ether. That is, a system of particles can obtain
> momentum out of the ether around it. It is the
> obtaining of momentum out of the ether that
> allows photons to move, and to move at a constant
> velocity.
> The movement of photons do not require any energy
> from any wave mechanism. But wave characteristics
> are obtained because the obtaining of energy out of
> the ether is complicated. This energy cannot result
> in the destruction of the system obtaining the
> energy, and the only way that stability is achievable
> is for there to be a rotation as well as a
> translation, and the combined effects result in
> what we see as a wave. It is very interesting, but
> of course it just is the way it is. It is also why
> most systems of particles have a spin, so that
> stability is maintained.
> Thus, this 'linear' velocity will be present for
> all these systems, either with the 'linear' velocity
> trapped in a spin, or partially let loose as with a
> photon. Balance can be achieved at most velocities
> between a pure spin and the speed of a photon, but
> the dynamics is going to be there in all cases.
> Please note: I am not able to show all these
> variables on a computer, but there are elements that
> can be shown.

Where are the equations of your "theory"? List all the postulates of
this at theory, so-called. Prove its main theorems.

> Reany wrote: . . .
> > Theory decides whether the MODEL of a photon is to
> >have mass or not.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Theory might decide such things. But actually,
> reality should be making such decisions.

We don't have "reality." We use what we have available and that is made
up theories.

> And a good
> theory will definitely reflect reality to every
> degree that it can! And reality shows that a photon
> has mass.

What the hell does it mean to say that "... a good theory will
definitely reflect reality to every degree that it can"?

>
> The at theory uses only mass and space to develop
> every thing it does. Collisions between particles of
> mass are all the interactions that occur. All
> collisions meet all the conservation laws that exist:
> mass, momentum, and kinetic energy. All collisions
> result in spalls. And this is it. No theory can be
> simpler! Nothing can be simpler!
> The differentiations between particles all exist
> in their total size (mass), and the exchange of mass
> function that each particle exhibits as it is being
> hit by all the local particles around it.

We can all see that it's so simple. Your so-called theory has a few
models, but no principles, no operational definitions, and no
equations. Yeah, that's simple all right! Too simple!

Patrick

Relevant Pages

  • Ultimate Reality is both simple and complicated!
    ... The Vision of our reality! ... distributed within space as particles, ... different than just mass. ... Spalls will be the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: REALITY and a model to represent it.
    ... Definition of ultimate reality. ... Reality is only mass and space. ... for the ether background, ... mundane particles and obtain gravity like forces ...
    (sci.physics)
  • REALITY and a model to represent it.
    ... REALITY and a model to represent it. ... Reality is only mass and space. ... for the ether background, ... mundane particles and obtain gravity like forces ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OBarr comments on your SR FAQ.
    ... Reany wrote: ... random distribution in size (mass), location, ... The only property of these particles is inertial ... disturbed by an actual collision with another ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr comments on your SR FAQ.
    ... Reany, we have talked before, and so there is no ... There really is a reality, ... So what about the photon is REALLY ... obtain particles that can produce effects that we ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)