Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!

In <1132148353.157649.57580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . . .

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>The Light Principle is a physical principle.

O'Barr comments:
Anyone can say anything. But to say that any math
equation is based on a physical theory, one must
state the physical theory, and show that the math is
then derived based upon the realistic requirements of
the underlying physical theory. Therefore, if you
want to claim that anything in SR is a physically
derived relationship, I am all ears! To my
knowledge, in SR, you just state that certain math
relationships are correct, like c is a constant, and
then you derive other math relationships based upon
these original math assumptions. Please prove me
wrong!

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

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>You're right! LET has a physical base that does not
>appear in SR, because SR and LET both have different
>physical bases!

O'Barr comments:
You have not shown any physical base to SR at all!
All you do in SR is to assume that c is a math
constant, and that the form of the math must be the
same for all frames. None of these two 'facts' are
derived facts based upon any physical assumptions
what-so-ever! What do you show that physically
exists so that c will always a constant? It is just
an assumption, nothing more, and thus there is no
physical base to it at all. There is, in fact, no
kind of a base, physical or otherwise. It is just
a stated fact!

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

O'Barr wrote:
>> But they are the same!

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>You are a semantic nightmare.

O'Barr comments:
I am sure that if you do not want to believe, you
won't!

O'Barr wrote:
>> 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!

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Why is it silly to speak of an infinite number of
>ethers, O'Barr the Great?

O'Barr comments:
Since SR is only math, then those who believe in
SR become careless and begin to think like
mathematicians. You begin to believe in any number
of dimensions you want to have, because math allows
you to have any number of dimensions you wish. Math
does not care if you have 11 dimensions, you just put
in a few zeros here and there, and pesto, you have
what you want. But you see, when you hold to a
physical point of view, when you become realistic and
require logic and cause and effects, etc, you do not
have the freedom that you have in math. You do not
have infinities, you do not have 4-D, you do not have
breaks in symmetries, you do not have jumps in times.
All these things are disallowed. And thus your talk
up above is funny, unrealistic, impossible,
unscientific. It is like magic, and this kind of
thinking is going to end!

<deletes by O'Barr>

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Modern SR is more predictive than LET, which is
>restricted to E&M.

O'Barr comments:
On this net, we take LET to apply to all that is
seen, exactly as is done with SR.


O'Barr wrote:
>> 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.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.

O'Barr comments:
Well, LET does not yet cover gravity. But neither
does SR. I do not believe that you are being very
fair in any of this. The same math is the same math.
In LET, it directly shows that the results of LET
makes things appear to be frame independent, exactly
as is just assumed in SR. Anything that is correctly
assumed in SR, then ends up being able to be assumed
in LET. The fact that you have not ever tried to do
this does not mean that it cannot be done. If in
fact, you could show that it cannot be done, then any
simple test of that fact would instantly establish
LET to be wrong, and we would not have the problem
that now exists. So let us do what you say, and you
would go down in history!

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr worte:
>> . . . 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.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.

O'Barr comments:
Hey! It sounds like you have seen this toy. It
is not the touching of separate balls that exists.
In the at theory, you have small balls and large
balls. If a small ball hits a large ball, and this
hit produces a spall off the opposite side of the
larger ball that is of the same mass as the smaller
ball, and the original smaller ball becomes attached
to the larger ball, then the large ball will not show
any change in its motion. This is what was being
shown! Thanks!

O'Barr wrote:
>> (See the at theory.)

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>How does your magical ether know when to let
>something pass and when to interect with it?
> How does LET explain inertia or atoms?

O'Barr comments:
The at theory is not the TOE! There are many
things that are just assumed. The at theory assumes
that all matter has inertia. Other than some kind of
ability to maintain itself as particles, inertia is
the only property that is assigned to matter. It is
inertia that makes matter something, and the total
lack of inertia that makes space nothing.
All particles that meet at any common point
collide with each other. The results of any
collision depends upon the mass of each of the
particles. These results are all pre-assigned. I
often use a look-up table to determine the mass that
is going to be spalled, or exchanged.


<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.

O'Barr comments:
These are nice questions, and if I really could
answer any of these questions, I probably would not
be on this net. I cannot even say what an electron
is. What I can do, is what LeSage wanted to do, but
could not do. I know how to make a mechanical system
in which force fields can appear to exist, even when
perfect conservation of mass, energy and momentum are
maintained. In doing this, I get equal and opposite
forces, and I get some translational effects, and I
get gravity.
So far, I have only limited quantum effects, but
more effects would exist if I could find that some
orbits are stable, and others are not. My computer
does not yet allow me to search for such things. I
cannot get E = mc^2, but I do get E equal to the mass
of all particles. I get the uncertainty principle,
for position, energy, momentum, velocity and mass.

But anyone can understand the at theory, and I am
sure that many on this net could check on such
things!
Now please understand a few things, I know that QM
can create force fields. But I am doing it by pure
Newtonian mechanics. I do not have to use any
violation of any conserved property, or use matter
anti-matter, or any imaginary acts at all, for a
short time, or on an average. It is all simple
Newtonian physics at every step.

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I take it that in your at theory photon are ether
>particles with a difference.

O'Barr comments:
Again, a photon is even more mysterious to me than
an electron. But in the at theory, you can get some
particles to translate, and a balance in their motion
occurs when their drag balances their translational
efforts. So some of the properties of a photon can
be mimicked. All this might be meaningless, but it
sure is interesting.

<deletes by O'Barr>

<surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>So, you have a working model packed with
>computations to show us, proving that this program
>of yours actually works?

O'Barr comments:
I have posted several basic at programs, in basic
and q-basic. At one time I had a home page at:

<http://www.geocities.com/globarr>

I have posted some programs on this net, I think
the latest was only a year or so ago, and a google
search should bring them up. For fun, I checked
myself, and reposted it one minute ago. There
were other information posted at the same time.
If you really have an interest, I can repost them
also.

All of the things I have posted are only simple 1-D
examples of the process. Any real study of this
theory would require a full 3-D program.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • 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)
Loading