Re: Why a Problem?

In <ntadndn20K6CVoHeRVn-rQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>> Why a Problem?
>>
><snipped wasted bandwidth>
>>
O'Barr wrote:
>> . . . to be more specific: Those who support SR
>> today seem to accept a 4-D spacetime as a reality.
>> This 4-D is physically so impossible I cannot even
>> visualize it in my mind. And SR did not start out
>> this way. If SR did not start out this way, do all
>> you SR experts say that SR was wrong the first few
>> years of its life? And I know of no testing that
>> was or is used to indicate a 4-D, as counter to a
>> 3-D. So I have no science that indicates this 4-D,
>> with any specified error of margin. . . .

Richard Perry wrote:
>The 4D manifold predates special relativity.

O'Barr comments:
It is true, math is math, and 4D math has existed
as long as man has been able to count! But you are
not so silly, are you, to say that scientific people
actually thought that 3-D space and 1-D time was not
separate entities, but where physically interlinked
together into one whole 4-D? That time could
actually and truly and really be space, and space
could really and truly be time? Just by a simple
rotation? CFR!


Richard Perry wrote:
>The idea is that every spacetime event can be
>described as having a relative location in space and
>in time as well, 4 dimensions in all, one number per
>dimension per event.

O'Barr comments:
But this is not what is being taught in SR! Let
us not be so dumb that we do not know what is being
taught! You are not just teaching that numbers can
be assigned to an event! You are not just teaching
that a set of 4 numbers make up a unique 'location!'
You are saying that there is a real physical 4-D
entity within which both space and time physically
exist, all part of the same medium! And you are
saying that a simple rotation causes space to become
time, and time to become space, just as a rotation
can cause a North to be South, and a South to be
North! Tell me you are not this dumb! Why talk to
you if you do not even know the science being
discussed!

Richard Perry wrote:
>The difference between the Lorentz and Galilean
>manifolds is only in the transformations between
>frames. WRT any one frame there is no
>distinction between the two whatsoever.

O'Barr comments:
Certainly, in terms of LET and SR, the math
answers are absolutely identical, in terms of the
results, in terms of any and all math predictions.
And this is true within any one frame (as you said),
or within any transformations between frames (which
you did not say!) And many on this net have died the
death of being unscientific, because they refuse to
admit such. Might I suggest that you reconsider what
you said above!
The identicalness of the math results, however,
does not give you or anyone else the right to refuse
to see that the base upon which these predictions are
conceptualized are mutually exclusive! The base to
LET is simple, an absolute reference, with a simple
fixed 3-D space, and simple 1-D time. The LET
approach is a simple physical approach, with full
abilities to conceptualize every step taken, with the
potential of having full causality.
In SR, you have no physical base whatsoever! You
do not even know what actually happens. The word
'what actually happens' is not allowed in your
vocabulary! All you get from your theory is what
would be measured if you had a certain measurement
system. That is all you know. But in LET, we know
the differences that can be between what is measured
from what actually might happen. And thus, what
actually happens never includes any jumps in time, or
back in times. But in SR, you have to accept that
such measurements occur, and you cannot say what
might have really happened!
All your theory allows you to say is only what is
measured. What you measure is your only reality, and
thus you have to live with what you measure, and for
this, you are dead as a scientist. Shame on you!

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... Did you take any post-elementary math? ... That's what spacetime _is_, not a continuous anything. ... (Nothing the electron rubs around on, ... try this imagery; there's a branch of math called "topology" ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... the math is correct in predicting what ... No philosophy that I know of would allow ... You are not attacking the data. ... data is only measurement data, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... and that definitely is occuring in our spacetime. ... GR where you can take gravity to be negligent. ... The math are there. ... Transverse amplitude is determined by taking into account that ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
    ... The Proper understanding of Modern Physics. ... There is no desire to destroy the math of SR. ... The MMX disproved the ether. ... measurement, but we also had to then determine what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?
    ... >> | math, but the math can be deceiving. ... >> | measurement purposes. ... >> Deimos orbits Mars, or for that matter the Moon orbits the Earth, how will ... To be more to the point, what is the physicality of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)