Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!


PD wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> > In <1132403628.859866.56560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> . . .
> >
> > <deletes by O'Barr>
> >
> > <surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>> . . . different paradigms covering the same
> > >>>> phenonena are going to naturally compete for
> > >>>> preiminence for the prize of research grants and
> > >>>> textbooks.
> >
> > Harry <harald.vanlin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> Yeah, that's very true.
> >
> > O'Barr wrote:
> > >> It is most interesting as to why our physics is
> > >> such a shame. Is it power? Is it an effort to
> > >> control all these research grants? Is it money
> > >> and reputation? Is it pride?
> > >>
> > >> It is easy to know what the correct scientific
> > >> position should be: LET is superior. It has the
> > >> correct physical base, as observed by experiments.
> > >> SR is correct, as far as the math goes, and can
> > >> and should be
> > >> used because of its power and simplicity.
> > >> SR math is the easiest for most problems. But SR
> > >> math must be limited and defined and controlled by
> > >> LET, and the physical base upon which LET is
> > >> developed.
> > >> When we take this approach, we end up with no
> > >> real
> > >> jumps in times, no breaks in symmetries, no
> > >> mysterious 4-D, no paradoxes, not even imagined
> > >> paradoxes. And we have a better approach upon
> > >> which to do our research and to make physical
> > >> connections to all other theories.
> >
> > PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote (about SR):
> > >1. There are no jumps in time, no breaks in
> > >symmetries, . . .
> >
> > O'Barr comments:
> > When do we laugh? If there are not such things in
> > SR, then maybe I should ask you to present a full
> > 'paradox of the twins' explanation! This is one of
> > the oldest and the most often done paradox, and there
> > are many examples around. Please give to us any one
> > of these examples you wish, as long as it shows the
> > complete SR results for all the frames used by all
> > the twins, and show us how SR ends up making the time
> > for each twin to be the results as they are known to
> > be!
>
> There are several lovely expositions of how this so-called "paradox" is
> completely well-understood in SR. I will give you only a capsule of one
> explanation. You are used to the straight line being the shortest
> distance between two points. This is a consequence of Euclidean
> geometry and is mathematically understandable from the expression for
> the metric
> ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2.
> However, in reality, our reality is not Euclidean but hyperbolic, and
> in such a space the straight line is the *longest* distance between two
> points.

no ***, so the shortest might be a line in zigzag, you fool

> This is mathematically understandable from the mixed signs that
> appear in the metric
> ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2.
> How this applies to the twin paradox is that the one that stays at rest
> in a single inertial frame is the one that travels in a straight line
> through *spacetime*. The other twin is the one that travels the
> non-straight path through spacetime. The one following the straight
> line is the one that covers the *longer* distance in spacetime and so
> ages more.
>
> PD

.

Quantcast