Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!

In <1132075765.278398.304340@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 wrote:
>> 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 wrote:
>> What is is what is. I take things no further.
>> And neither should you.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>According to you: the etherists get to maintain that
>the choice that "The rest frame of the ether is what
>it is, and thus one should not pursue it further!"
>Yet, you deny the relativist the equal right to
>claim: "The Light Principle is just what it is and
>one should not pursue it further."
....

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
This is not what is being said. All theories have
a base built upon assumptions, and it is important
that the base of a theory is exactingly understood.
The base to SR is a math base, built upon one math
constant, c, and one math principle, that the form of
the math for all frames has the same form. These
math assumptions are adequate for development of the
correct math transforms.
LET of course also has a base, and its base
consists of physical assumptions, that there is an
absolute frame, a simple 3-D frame, in which all
normal rules of geometry apply (such as simple
addition of velocities, etc.), but the physical rates
of clocks follow the same rates as light clocks, and
the physical lengths of rulers follow the same
changes as seen with the diameters of an equal
potential charged sphere.
The important question is not whether or not one
theory or the other can really explain its own base,
but which base is the deeper, more supportive base.
Since LET is a physical base, and since it ends up
being able to explain the math base as is used in SR,
then LET is superior. There is nothing hard about
any of this, and there is absolutely nothing to
argue. LET has more to offer than SR, being able to
explain SR, and SR has no way of explaining LET. All
that SR can do is to prove that LET is correct, just
as LET can prove that SR is correct, but only LET can
tell us why SR is correct.

<deletes by O'Barr>

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

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Then stop saying that the two theories are the same.

O'Barr comments:
But they are the same! They make the identical
predictions! They have the identical math! In every
critical way they are the same. LET has more than
what SR has, but what ever SR has, so does LET.
I do not know why you have a problem with this.
Joe might have a picture of my house, and Nick might
have a picture of my house. Joe might have a picture
that shows the back of my house, and Nick might show
the back and one side of my house. I have every
right to say that both of these people have a picture
of the same house, a picture of my house!

<deletes by O'Barr>

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
> One time-honored one is that of occam's razor,
>the injunction against the over invention of
>independent things or interactions (hypotheses).
>The intension was to minimize the system one
>invents. Now, I also cannot prove that there isn't
>an infinite number of ethers, one for each inertial
>system. But such a hypothesis requires more
>justification, in my mind, than the hypothesis that
>there is only one. Ironically, the invention of an
>infinite number of ethers removes the embarrasing
>question of why nature chose but one frame out of an
>infinite number of frames as its choice for the rest
>frame of Lorentz's ether.

O'Barr comments:
What I find embarrassing is to have evidently a
grown man who wants to talk about an infinite number
of ethers. MAYBE that is why your English got mixed
up a little. But surely you must feel something
wrong as you speak in such silly ways!

<deletes by O'Barr>

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
> The point that relativists make is that SR is more
>economical than LET, while being just as predictive
>as LET. In fact, more so, because, since 1905, SR
>had been generalized from E&M to include all the
>forces (except gravity) locally.

O'Barr comments:
And why is not said in the FAQ? I see no where on
this net where it is said that LET is just as
predictive as SR. I do not see this being taught at
any University. Very few people will say what you
just said. Why is that?
It is true that present day scientists only use SR
math, but anything that SR math can do, so can LET,
since LET results in the same math. Why do I get the
feeling that you are all talk?

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
>The biggest weakness of LET, or any luminiferous
>ether theory I've seen, is that its proponents claim
>the existence of a medium which is supposed to
>"explain" light propagation in mechanical terms, yet
>there is no mechanical theory of a luminiferous
>ether which is both simple and working. In short,
>ether theories have failed to fullfill the very
>reason for the existence of ether theories of their
>adamant adherence to them. We are told that the
>Light Principle is "explained" by the existence of a
>luminiferous ether, yet etherists never tell us
>exactly how this ether works to propagate light yet
>allow matter to "flow" through it freely. I mean
>speciffically, how light is modeled as a wave
>disturbance in this mechanical medium. An even
>bigger problem for etherists is the problem of
>atomic radiation and absorption. Is light absorption
>the collapse of a spherical ether wave onto an
>electron? How improbable an event!

O'Barr comments:
My, what a set of questions! Have you ever seen
the toy consisting of five steel balls hanging in a
line, and they are each touching the one next to it?
If you pick up the last one, and let it swing to hit
the one next to it, they all stay stationary except
for the one on the opposite end, and it moves away as
fast as the first one hit on the other end. This
little toy is a good demonstration of how the ether
works. Any mass moving through the ether, that
interacts with the ether by producing a spall equal
to the ether particle being hit, will see no loss of
its momentum while all these things are occurring.
(See the at theory.)

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
>Is this ether stationary? Does it resist the motion
>of ordinary matter through it? Is it a kind of
>matter we are already familiar with or a kind of
>matter all its own (bad for logical economy)?

O'Barr comments:
It is the identical matter out of which all
particles are created. (Even matter and anti-matter
consist of the same mass.) It is a free gas
consisting of particles that have a certain
dispersion in size or mass. (A free gas means that
the particles that make up the ether have no
resistance at all to their motions, unless and until
they collide with another particle.) What ever
'resistance' is seen by any large body's motion in
the ether is determined by the type of spalls
produced by that specific particle (and the type of
spalls can themselves be affected by the dispersion
that is already present in the ether.)
It does not have waves in it like we know waves, so
photons are not waves that are part of the ether.
But the speed of photons, just like the spin of other
large particles, occur due to, and are limited by,
their interactions with the ether particles at the
location they exist.
What is most interesting, is that certain
dispersions, and certain reactions to these
dispersions, can result in both translation effects
and/or drag, or attraction and repulsions. It really
is nice, because these are also equal effects.

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
> . . . Within SR, there are a multitude of
> hidden assumptions, many dealing with what must be
> done to make a proper measurement, as you
> mentioned, . . .

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
>Which are which, in your opinion?

O'Barr comments:
In SR, one correct way to make measurements is to
set up a ruler grid, place clocks at every point
where a measurement is going to be made, and then
sync each clock with the others. The math of SR,
such as c being a constant in free space, has no
meaning unless the measurement system is set up along
the lines mentioned.

O'Barr wrote:
> and many others that you did not mention.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
Such as?

O'Barr comments:
The standard transforms are for going from one
inertial reference frame to another. Thus,
accelerating frames are not directly handled. This
does not mean you cannot handle accelerations in SR,
only that you must consider more than just the
standard transforms to do it. In LET, in the rest
frame of the ether, everything is perfect on a
kinematics level, where a fixed acceleration will
produce a final velocity using standard
relationships.

O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> 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: . . .
>By your own definition, LET is only a math theory
>because it is an explanation in name only: it
>explains nothing in mechanical terms. LET has no
>physical base. It's a distinction from SR without a
>difference in reality in terms of mechanical
>explanations.

O'Barr comments:
Say anything you want. This is free America, and
anyone can be a fool anytime they want to be. One
proof that SR is only math, is that in any problem
that is worked in SR, ie, the twin paradox, you have
no way of saying or knowing exactly what physically
occurs so that you get the answer you get. All you
have is the math, the math answer that there will be
such and such difference, but physically, you know
nothing as to what physically occurred so that you
would have the answer you have. Don't you know this?
SR is a weak and a silly science in that it cannot
tell us anything as to what exactly happens
physically in order for us to get the answer it
provides.
In LET, we have the ability to explain exactly
what might have happened, physically, to produce the
exact answer that is obtained. Does this make LET
perfect? No! But it sure is better than SR, where
no physical answer at all is possible.

<deletes by O'Barr>

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
>It is irrelevant how fanciful the theory is so long
>as it makes testable predictions for
>experimentalists.
>
>LET has no physical base -- by your silly
>definition, that is. But in truth, every theory that
>makes physical predictions (i.e., predicts how
>experimental devices will behave) is a physical
>theory with a physical base. There is nothing more
>basic than how experimental equipment will behave in
>an experiment. Thermometers, rods, and clocks, etc
>are physical entities.

O'Barr comments:
Well again, you are wrong. Any physics equation,
that is only establishing a math correlation for some
event, is only a math theory. Newton's law of
gravity was only a math theory. It certainly
predicts what physical objects are going to do, what
effects they might have, what response might be
measured. But it was and is only math. To have a
physical theory of the law of gravity would require
something like what LeSage tried to do, where
physical particles were assumed to be moving through
space, and by the actions of these physical
particles, one would be able to derived the law of
gravity. If you cannot understand such simple
things, how are we going to have any kind of
meaningful communications? Please reconsider your
position. I cannot take much more of your silliness!

Let us end here.
Surely anyone must know the differences between a
physics equation that is just a math relationship,
just made up to conform with observations, from an
equation based upon physical and/or mechanical acts
that are exactingly stipulated and correctly applied
to solve a known problem. Until you can tell me that
you know that Newton's law of gravity is just a math
equation, and that PV = nRT is more than just a math
equation, being derived from a deeper physical
reality, for at least two famous examples of these
two kinds of equations, then I am afraid we will not
get very far.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Let us be sure that we know what the problem is!
    ... observer, in any valid SR measurement frame, measures ... a photon is never at ... Math does not lie, not even in SR. ... physics 'ended' a longer time ago. ...
    (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)