Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

In <tim.shuba-FD46B2.16564814052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
shuba <tim.sh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Ilja wrote:
>> . . .

Ilja wrote:
>> Agreement. The SM is not ether-based, only
>>_compatible_ with a preferred frame. ...

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
This is a safe way of saying things. The ether is
compatible with everything! That is, with everything
that appears to be stable, etc.
Actually, in the at theory, there are some stable
particles that arise in the ether that are part of
our reality. Therefore, SM is affected and limited
by the ether. And I also know that GR and the ether
are one and the same. That is, the physical ether is
the physical base that GR math is mimicking.

shuba <tim.sh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Why the difference? Why not simply assert that
>there is a preferred frame at every 4-space point,
>and then claim that GR is compatible with ether?
>How do we tell that any theory is incompatible with
>ether theory? To help with that question, what is
>ether, anyway? Must it have a preferred frame?
>Why? Are there other properties ether must have?
>Cannot have?

O'Barr comments:
What are you trying to do, Shuba? Why it almost
sounds like you are trying to be scientific! I can't
believe it! You are actually asking some very
important questions.
The space in which the ether exists is simple
empty space, and has no preferred frame! We have no
way of knowing how fast the ether is moving in this
space. But the ether itself, of course, has an
average motion within itself.
Just for fun, let me explain a few of the
mechanics that exists in the ether, that makes it
'immuned' to some of your concerns. Just think, that
when particles spall, and the spall is the exact same
mass as the particle causing the spall, there is no
effect upon the particles being hit. No effects at
all. Thus, it does not matter how fast this particle
is going, it will make no difference. Can you
understand this? Therefore, since all spalls are, to
the first order, the same mass as the particles
causing the spall, then to first order, the relative
velocities between reference frames are unimportant,
as far as the ether effects are of concern.
And second, the actual effects of the ether
requires multiple interactions, and these multiple
interactions involve particles coming from both
directions, and if the velocity in one direction is
greater due to absolute motion, then the velocity in
the other direction will be less. And many times,
these two effects are self canceling, depending on
what the effect is that is being experienced. So in
the at theory, velocity effects do exist, at times,
but many times they do not exist, and in fact, they
can actually be an effect in reverse of the direction
of the motion. It is a very interesting situation,
and the questions you are asking are the questions
that will eventually have to be asked and answered.

Thank you for showing a little interest in such a
silly subject! I take back all those bad things I
might have thought at one time. You might be a
physicist after all!

<deletes by O'Barr>

Shuba wrote:
>Yeah. That's why Bilge's requests can't be
>reasonably dismissed by saying "oh, that trivial
>nonsense has already been dealt with when everthing
>about invariance was explained by LET".

O'Barr comments:
Ilja can do what ever he wants, of course, just as
I can. I sure have no desire to spend my time doing
someone else's home work. I believe that there have
been references in the normal literature that have
addressed all of these issues anyway.
If anyone wants to compare SR with LET, all they
need to do is to show the step by step processes that
they suppose was taken in SR to get what they wanted.
Then step by step, LET can be compared to SR for each
of those steps.
One of the problems with developing science is
this: many successes are obtained by accident.
Sometimes we think one way, but actually it is some
other way. And thus, when anyone demands that
something be done, you just might not be able to do
it the way they expect it to be done. We really do
not have a physical understanding of GR or SR or QM,
or a lot of other sciences. So until we have more of
these things done, we are doing a lot of guessing.

[..]

Shuba wrote:
> ... they ... assert that special relativity is not
>even a physical theory. That's hardly a sign of
>great acumen about the philosophy of physics or
>mathematics. So other than a lack of knowledge of
>mathematics and physics, and a questionable grasp of
>the related philosophy, I guess I can't think of
>many objections to those people either.

O'Barr comments:
Well, thank you, I think.
But this is no game in saying that SR is only
math. PV = nRT is not just math, it has a physical
base, but SR is only math, and there is nothing you
can do about this until you accept LET. And because
SR is only math, then it is weak, and it has no solid
limits to its interpretations. SR is in need of
being strengthened by bringing LET on board! And
this is going to happen, under one name or another.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... My at theory uses an ether, ... using just mass and space. ... These field particles are usually controlled ... to either spall in a way to make ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The ether saves our lives
    ... > around one side of the Sun and absorb exactly 1/2 of the energy it ... Since you imply that you have studied physics yourself it seems not to ... from particles. ... not by the ether and dust drag. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Physical Ether!
    ... Gradients in the ether! ... the sub-atomic particles of matter that makes up our ... the conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy. ... They spall. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >>| 1/ Light is a wave travelling in the ether its speed is controlled by ... >>| the assumption at the heart of relativity is justified. ... > in physics. ... > distortion of A's measurements due to his motion relative to the ether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Feynman Lectures on X-ons
    ... In their introductory physics text, ... radiates a flux of subquantum particles called "little X-ons"; ... the electric potential field around an electron. ... returning to the concept of an ether. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)