Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> In <1132075765.278398.304340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
....
>
> <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.

The Light Principle is a physical principle.

> <deletes by O'Barr>
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> >> LET includes a physical base that
> >> does not appear in SR.

You're right! LET has a physical base that does not appear in SR,
because SR and LET both have different physical bases!

> <surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Then stop saying that the two theories are the same.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But they are the same!

You are a semantic nightmare.


> <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!

Why is it silly to speak of an infinite number of ethers, O'Barr the
Great?


>
> <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'm not responsible for what goes into the FAQ. If I were, it would
have a lot of things in it that don't currently appear in it.

> 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?

Modern SR is more predictive than LET, which is restricted to E&M.

> 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.

Wrong, for the reason I just gave above, two different times. LET does
not cover QED, the weak force, and the strong force. For that matter,
it doesn't cover gravity either.

> <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.

I know of no model of a "gas" in which the particles form a lattice of
touching objects. Which is it, O'Barr: are your ether particles in
constant contact with each other or not? Produce at least one real
example of a pheneomena explained by this sprawl effect. BTW, the toy
example you gave only works because the steel balls are aligned with
great precision. If they were not, the effect you mentioned wouldn't be
evident, and the toy wouldn't work: It would be only chaotic motions of
the balls.

> (See the at theory.)

How does your magical ether know when to let something pass and when to
interect with it? How does LET explain inertia or atoms?

Spectroscopically, we talk about a Rydberg series as a known phenomena
of hydrogen spectra. Tell us all about emission spectra in your at
theory. Please feel free to use equations and numeric examples. In
particular, tell us how the ether decides to transfer energy to an
"orbiting" electron of hydrogen or any other atom (the process know as
absorbtion). Show us how an ether gas accomplishes all of this.

I take it that in your at theory photon are ether particles with a
difference.


>
> <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.

What is it then? Leptons? Bosons? What are the quantum numbers of your
ether particles? What are its most elementary particles and their
qualities?

> (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.)

So, you have a working model packed with computations to show us,
proving that this program of yours actually works?

> It does not have waves in it like we know waves, so
> photons are not waves that are part of the ether.

And wavelike effects are produced how?

> 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?
>
Since your reply was nonresponsive to the list I provided, I deleted
your reply.
....

> In LET, we have the ability to explain exactly
> what might have happened, physically, to produce the
> exact answer that is obtained.

OK, I asked you some questions above to see if you can "explain
exactly."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... >the choice that "The rest frame of the ether is what ... The base to SR is a math base, ... Any physics equation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The at Theory.
    ... The Ether Theory. ... elements, mass and space. ... These particles have a near infinite variance in ... have an average of 800 mass units. ...
    (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)
  • Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
    ... (A mechanical system that allows particles to ... The ether, it seems so mysterious. ... is mass. ... collision as before the collision. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
    ... (A mechanical system that allows particles to ... The ether, it seems so mysterious. ... is mass. ... call it a perfect spall. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast