Re: O'Barr, do solid objects exist?
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Mar 2005 16:50:56 -0800
In <slrnd4ku4s.6h5.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . .
<deletes by O'Barr>
Bilge wrote: . . .
> You refuse to refer to any theory you don't
>understand as a physical theory, so your only
>justification for differentiating between relativity
>or relativistic quantum field theory and PV = nRT
>is that you don't understand the physics in
>relativity or relativistic quantum field theory.
O'Barr comments:
I am sure you would like it to be all this easy.
But it is not. Take Newton's law of gravity:
F = G * M1 * M2 / r^2
This law of gravity is not a physical theory. It is
only a math theory. At no time does Newton propose to
us a physical base upon which one could derive this
relationship. Please note: it does not matter how
simple this math might be. Thus, you are lying above
where you say that to me it is only a function of my
understanding that is involved. It is in fact,
nothing to do with me at all. It has to do with the
known base of the math.
If all a theory has is math, math based upon math,
or other math relationships and/or math assumptions,
then that theory is a math theory. This is what most
physics theories are when they start out, when we are
in the research stage. It takes work to put flesh
upon the math.
Bilge wrote:
>You lack of understanding is not a valid criterion.
>I insist you apply only objective criteria to
>distinguish between what you call a ``math theory''
>and a ``physical theory.''
O'Barr comments:
This distinction between a math theory and a
physical theory has always existed. When Newton first
gave us his law of gravity, everyone knew that this
was only a math relationship. This was why LeSage
tried to put together his mundane particle theory, to
provide a physical understanding to Newton's math.
Everyone knew what was going on, and everyone knew
that if a physical base could be found, it would be a
superior approach than what Newton had done for us.
All scientists know that in research, you begin
with observations, and these observations can
eventually be cataloged, and placed into various
classifications. Then you look for patterns, and
eventually a math that mimics the results that have
been seen and observed. Then, with usually a lot of
thought and effort, a physical explanation is sought
upon which the math can be explained, even derived,
and thus defined and limited by the physical base that
is established. SR has so far not put any physical
base together upon which the causes and the limits of
the math can be established. Only LET has a physical
base that does all these things.
Bilge wrote:
>Therefore, I insist that you refer to any theory that
>contains math, as a math theory until such time as
>you understand relativity and relativistic quantum
>field well enough to explain in detail what the math
>in those those theories means physically and why the
>_physics_ is _wrong_. Anything less will result in
>comments which are appropriate for your content free
>posts.
O'Barr comments:
How did you get so confused? I do say SR is just a
math theory, exactly as you insist.
So insist all you want, Bilge, on anything you
want. This is free America, and as has been said
before on this net, you are free to say what you want.
And with your demanding position above, then you can
run away from this problem as long as you want. So go
ahead, and run away just as fast as your little feet
can carry you.
I know what a math theory is, and I know what a
physical theory is, and there is nothing you have said
that has changed any of this! And you know, I believe
you know this. You just cannot be so dumb that you do
not know within your own heart that when you just have
an equation, that this means it is only math.
O'Barr wrote:
>>The question is not whether the math of one theory
>>is equal math to the math of another theory. The
>>question is, what is controlling that math?
Bilge wrote:
> I control the math and exploit it to expose the
> physics.
O'Barr comments:
I think I am beginning to see the problem. It is a
control problem. You demand to be in control, even
over the math. But you do not understand, Bilge, I am
the least on this net, and you have full control. You
do not need to concern yourself about me.
In physical theories, the math is not controlled by
man. In PV = nRT, the physical acts of the molecules
bouncing against the walls and each other control the
results, not man. And this is the value of having a
physical theory. The physical theory controls the
definitions, the meaning, the limits, the very nature
of the science, not any man, no matter how smart he
might be, or how much he knows.
But in SR, which is not a physical theory, only
being math, you or anyone else can control this math
in any way you please. You can have particles moving
faster than the speed of light, you can even give them
names, you can have even negative or imaginary
numbers, you can do anything you want, because there
is no physical base that limits the math. Yes, you
like this control, and you use this control, to do
everything, even to making multiple dimensions, and
anything else that fits your fancy. Too bad that you
do not have a physical theory that would limit these
acts!
Bilge wrote:
>I know more math than you do, so my ability to
>understand the physics is not limited . . .
>[...]
<delete of all the love notes from Bilge to Bilge>
O'Barr comments:
I am sure we all know what you are doing here,
Bilge! I am sure glad that I am around so you can
feel so good about yourself!
[...]
O'Barr wrote:
>> All that is really done in SR is to assume that c
>> is a math constant, and the form of the math must
>> be the same in all reference frames.
Bilge wrote:
> I rest my case. You have no comprehenion of what
>relativity is all about. To phrase it language you
>_might_ be able to comprehend, relativity assumes
>only that experiments can be performed in different
>places and are repeatable. Whether or `c' is a finite
>number under those assumptions is up to experiment to
>decide. Experiment decided.
O'Barr comments:
At the time Einstein presented SR, he made it a
part of his approach, exactly. In Einstein's train
experiment, where the train had a velocity of v in the
frame of the tracks, and light had a velocity of c in
that same frame and direction, the velocity of light
past the train was exactly c +/- v. Yes, we know
exactly what Einstein thought, and did, with his math
approach. Einstein never gave a physical base for
light to move at c, nor did he give a physical basis
for anything in his theory. He just said these things
were so. This is called math. Just saying that
things followed a specific math rule is one thing,
stipulating a physical base upon which these things
could be based is another. And you cannot run and
hide from all this.
Bilge wrote:
>Your rejection of relativity means you reject the
>assumption that experiments are repeatable and do not
>depend on being performed in a particular place.
O'Barr comments:
First of all, I do not reject SR. SR has the exact
same math as LET. SR makes the same predictions as
LET. If I rejected SR, I would have to reject LET.
And I could not be that dumb!
For your information, Bilge, SR and LET are the
same theory: SR is the correct math of our reality,
and LET is the correct physics that goes with the
correct math. So nothing you say makes any sense. It
is as if you have to make up things to have an excuse
to be on this net. What is your problem?
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O'Barr, do solid objects exist?
- From: Bilge
- Re: O'Barr, do solid objects exist?
- Prev by Date: Re: The appearence of car wheels near the speed of light
- Next by Date: Re: BECs, Singularities and HUP .
- Previous by thread: Re: The appearence of car wheels near the speed of light
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr, do solid objects exist?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
