Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!

In <1131810757.933342.90330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . .

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
> ... these questions are fundamental to anyone who
>thinks that LET is THE theory that answers all
>important questions regarding the nature of E&M.
>Your attempt to vilify these questions only proves
>that you are hiding behind an ineffective smoke
>screen, rather than try to honestly deal with them.

O'Barr comments:
Maybe I need to repent. It was wrong if I
indicated that LET answers all of our questions. It
certainly doesn't even answer all the questions about
E&M. To me, LET is only a kinematics theory, and
does not even address E&M beyond the kinematics of
light free-space velocity. This is not very much
indeed! But LET is fully compatible with E&M. It
fully supports E&M.

O'Barr wrote:
>> As was said in the
>> previous post, nature did not choose anything.
>> Nature just is. And all we have to do is to
>> understand what nature is, not why it did this or
>> did that, etc. You are making things to be things
>> that are silly and have no reason to consider!

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Fine! If nature didn't choose the rest frame of the
>ether, who or what did? Or was it just an accident.
>The ether --- a grand accident?

O'Barr comments:
What is is what is. I take things no further.
And neither should you.
In the at theory, we can consider such things that
seems to concern you, but even here it is not
necessary to do so.

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
>> I see everything that an SR expert sees.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>No, you don't.

O'Barr wrote:
>> I see that SR math is perfect! It has to be
>>perfect, since it is the same math as LET!

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Neither SR nor LET is perfect as theories.

O'Barr comments:
That might certainly be true, but the math has so
far been adequate.

<deletes by O'Barr>

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Theories are more than tests. Theories are also
>explanations in terms of causations! (You make that
>point all the time!)

O'Barr comments:
I do! Thank you for noting this!

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>SR has two kinds of fundamental things in it: field
>and mass-energy particles. LET has three kinds of
>fundamental things in it: field (maybe, depending on
>whether ether can explain all noncontact
>interactions between particles), mass particles, and
>ether. The two theories are very different as
>explanations.

O'Barr comments:
You are correct: LET includes a physical base that
does not appear in SR. (My previous answer was only
talking about the math.)

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>If we allow your crazy way of arguing, we would have
>to allow one to say that every atheistic explanation
>of cause and effect is really a hidden version of a
>theistic theory which explains the same effects in
>terms of an ultimate God-cause. (I merely point the
>formal differences.)

O'Barr comments:
I accept your formal differences.

O'Barr wrote:
>> For you to say that there is a difference, forces
>> us to see that you are lying to yourself. And is
>> there a reason why you lie to yourself?

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>What unmitigated sophistry you engage in!

O'Barr comments:
You didn't tell me you were as smart as O'Barr!

....

>
> O'Barr wrote:
>>>> They make the exact same predictions, and only
>>>> a fool does not know that what I am saying is
>>>> correct!
>
> <surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>So, SR tells us all we can see (i.e., measure)
>>>about nature in EM phenomena. Therefore, anything
>>>more than that is non-empirical conjecturing on
>>>our part.
>
> O'Barr wrote:
>> The LET that is used on the sci.physics.relativity
>> net is different than Lorentz in several important
>> ways. First of all, we now know that the Lorentz
>> effect is followed by all things that have so far
>> been seen, not just e&m effects. This is
>> important. And I am sure you knew this!

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Your comment was nonresponsive to my claim! I
>repeat: Your ether is non-empirical conjecturing on
>your part. Show it to us.

O'Barr comments:
So your question is, show us the ether? Anyone
can show us the ether, exactly to the extent required
by the theory! That is why the theory is correct!
How about black holes? Are you saying that until
we ***see*** a black hole, it is not science? If the
science itself gives us a scientific base for why it
is not seen, then it can be science. Did you have
some other point that I am missing?

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
>> It really is funny how everyone seems unwilling to
>> accept the obvious. Are you saying that a math
>> theory cannot provide testable physical
>> predictions?

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I already told you that I object to your
>characterizations. I have every right to make up my
>definitions as you have to make up your definitions.

O'Barr comments:
When it comes to definitions of math theories and
physical theories, these definitions have already
been established. For example, when Newton gave us
the law of gravity (F = G*Ma*Mb/r^2), everyone knew
that it was only a math theory. It was not based
upon one single physical fact. The math was not
derived from a physical base. It was merely a math
relationship that appeared to match with
observations, that was all that it was.
But LeSage came along, and wanted to find a
physical theory to explain the math theory. And even
though LeSage was not able to be successful in doing
this, we all knew the difference between a math
theory, and a physical theory that LeSage was trying
to put together!
So please stop giving me problems on this issue.
It is a dead issue. SR is just a math theory; LET is
a physical theory. End of story! For this reason,
LET is superior to SR. It is now superior, and it
will always be superior. That is why physical
theories are always looked for, even if the correct
math theory exists!

O'Barr wrote:
>> Look, Newton's law of gravity makes testable
>> physical predictions. But it is only a math
>> theory.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Depends on the definition of "math theory" one uses.

O'Barr comments:
And we all know what these definitions mean!

O'Barr wrote:
>> And everyone knows this. What is your problem?

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Semantics and free will and the desire for
>clarification rather than obfuscation.

O'Barr comments:
You have your clarification.

O'Barr wrote:
>> Everyone knows what a math theory is, and everyone
>> knows what a physical theory is. PV = nRT is a
>> physical theory: It is based upon physical
>> assumptions, and the math comes from the physical
>> assumptions. There are no physical assumptions in
>> SR, you only have one math constant, c, and you
>> have
>> a rule that all math relationships have to be the
>> same in all frames.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>1905 SR has many physical assumptions:
>
>1) the comparison of the time components of distant
>events cannot be performed until some means of clock
>synchronization has been defined and implimented
>2) time is not absolute
>3) personal time runs at a constant apparent rate
>for the person using a single working clock sharing
>the same motion as the person
>4) the measured speed of light in an inertial frame
>in a vacuum is the fixed number c
>5) the laws of physics, which account for the
>behavior of objects subject to E&M forces, are the
>same in all inertial reference frames
>6) the laws of physics regarding the motions of
>charged test particles reduce to the laws of motion
>of Newton when the speeds of the test particles are
>very small compared to the speed of light
>7) the differential comparison of clock rates
>between inertial and non-inertial clocks must be
>formed as a limit procedure on the approximation of
>the non-inertial clock as undergoing n numerous
>small inertial motions, as the number n goes to
>infinity (standard calculus approximation)

O'Barr comments:
Very good! Within SR, there are a multitude of
hidden assumptions, many dealing with what must be
done to make a proper measurement, as you mentioned,
and many others that you did not mention. But what
has to be understood is that not one of these
assumptions physically explains to us the constant
value of the speed of light. We are not given the
physical cause or explanation for this simple fact!
It just is not there! It is there in LET, but not in
SR! Therefore, SR is only a math theory!

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>The above rules (which might be reduced in number
>with some effort) dictate how the SR theory will be
>developed, and insofar as they tell us something
>about either the behaviors of measuring instruments
>(primitive laws of physics) or the laws of physics
>more generally, they have physical content and
>therefore constitute a physical theory. One has
>physical content anytime one has a description of
>the behavior of physical things. Ironically, we
>don't even know if ether is a physical thing. As far
>as anyone can tell physically (by our bodily
>interactions with the universe), the luminiferous
>ether lives only inside of ether theories. But
>nobody doubts the existence of clocks and measuring
>rods and other macroscopic measuring instruments.
>Their behavior is what physics is all about!

O'Barr comments:
I see. If you write about mountains, then you are
high in the sky! Newton's law of gravity was about
physical things, and what physical things do; but as
a theory, it was only a math theory. The subject of
a theory does not control the base upon which it
sits. It is the base of the theory that makes the
theory a physical theory or a math theory. If it has
no physical base, a physical base from which the math
can be derived and developed and defined and limited,
then it cannot be a physical theory.
Any theory that has math, but no physical base, is
only a math theory. A math theory has no physical
base upon which the theory is able to be understood.
We have no physical base upon which to understand SR.
We do not even understand if clocks really slow down
or not, or whether there really are changes or not.
Physically, we know nothing in SR. We do not even
know how many dimensions there are. The math allows
any dimensions you want. In SR, you could have 11
dimensions. The math does not care! SR ends up
being a stupid and a weak theory, because it is only
math, and no one can say anything more!

>...

O'Barr wrote:
>> I am sure there are many things that we do not
>> know. But we do know that SR math works, and that
>> LET provides to us a physical base that explains
>> this math. And in using LET, we have a simpler
>> reality (only a 3-D reality, not 4-D), that has
>> simpler laws (no breaks in symmetry), and has the
>> ability of being
>> understood with logic and reasonableness that is
>> totally missing in SR.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Yet another nonresponsive reply to a simple, direct
>question! By accepting the existence of a preferred
>or special inertial frame in LET (the rest frame of
>the ether), one has given oneself of bunch of
>difficult questions to try to answer --- questions
>which don't even come up in SR in the first place.

O'Barr comments:
The question is not whether or not questions
appear! The question is, should the questions
appear, and should they be considered? If they
should be considered, then any theory that does not
even ask these right questions is a weak theory, and
must be rejected when a better theory appears that
does ask the right questions. Thanks for seeing all
this!

Thanks for reading, and having good answers!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... "The rest frame of the ether is what it is, ... physics: which is to be used in a working theory. ... SR is only a math theory! ... has no physical base. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... But to say that any math ... Any mass moving through the ether, ... If a small ball hits a large ball, ... Newtonian physics at every step. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... and that the form of the math must be the ... Tell us all the theories in physics that DO have a so-called physical ... Any mass moving through the ether, ... If a small ball hits a large ball, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... There is no ether that physically, ... SR has the correct math. ... Sidelights on Relativity, ... The Evolution of Physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... These two theories are Lorentz Ether Theory ... In this ether frame, ... is only a math theory. ... physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)