Re: What is the debate all about?

Some refinements...

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134015954.692134.245440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> What is the debate all about?
>
> It is hard to have a debate, when the debate is
> over things that we do not yet know. Since there is
> much that we do not yet know, and this includes
> things in SR, and things in LET, then we can make
> this just a finger-pointing exercise. But yet, as
> scientists, we should be able to reach more consensus
> than what we appear to be able to do. Therefore, let
> me start over, and again reiterate what I think the
> problem (the debate) is all about!
>
> A) SR and LET provides to us a very strange
> problem. It is not a common problem. These two
> theories produce the exact same math, and thus make
> the exact same predictions. Yet the base to each of
> these theories appear to be the exact opposites of
> each other.
> Now don't get me wrong. Science has always had
> competing theories. And these competing theories
> often gave very similar predictions. And often, it
> was hard to tell which one might be the more correct.
> One had to make very accurate, or very extreme
> measurements, to separate them.
> But with SR and LET, the problem can not be solved
> by making more accurate or more extreme measurements.
> In these two theories, the math is the exact same,
> and no difference can be found in any proposed
> measurement. This is odd in deed!
>
> This oddity, this strange relationship between SR
> and LET, seems to be ignored by the SR experts. And
> I believe that it is unscientific to ignore this.

This group has several people who do recognize this. But there isn't only
the "LET" model, there is also Einstein's Relative Reality model as well as
the Spacetime model that he later also adhered to, and both are generally
confused with "SRT". Throw all that confusion in one discussion in which
many participants don't even distinguish between "hard" physics and
philosophy, and you're in for a nicely screwed up debate. ;-)

> B) My answer to this strange relationship, is that
> SR is the correct math to our reality, and LET is the
> correct physics that goes with the correct math.
> Thus, I make them the same theory, which they are in
> terms of their predictive powers.

That's what started the problem in the first place: everyone their own
personal, untestable theorie that they all labelled SRT... instead SRT was
meant to be a principle theory ("the math" as you call it). In a way SRT is
"weak" because of its limited scope and corresponding lack of explanation;
in another way it's extremely strong, because it only alledges what can be
explicitly tested. I don't say that everyone should be satisfied with it;
just recognize its beauty.

Cheers,
Harald

> C) But it of course goes much deeper than all this.
> In all of our past history, we have often seen math
> relationships between variables be found, and used.
> We knew that Pressure and the volume of a fixed
> amount of gas were relatable. We knew that Pressure
> and temperature for a fixed volume of gas was
> relatable. We knew many things about gases, and many
> the variables that could be associated with them.
> But all these relationships were only math
> relationships, with no physical causes attached.
> But when the kinetic theory of gases came along,
> then the physical explanation for all these various
> math relationship became know, and understood, with
> known limits, and additional relationships that could
> not have come from just the original math
> relationships.
> And so, we have many reasons to hope that all of
> our plain math relationships will one day be able to
> be combined together into a physical base theory,
> that will give explanation to the math. Newton's law
> of gravity, QM, SR, GR, all these math approaches
> should one day have a physical base, which will
> provide the proper understanding, the proper limits,
> the proper definitions that should be attached to the
> math being used.
> And in a very real way, LET does this for SR.
>
> D) Now why is just a math theory not good? When
> all you have is just a math theory, such as SR, then
> you have no physical understanding, or no physical
> explanations, to support your theory. You end up
> with a very weak theory. This is the situation with
> SR. SR cannot, at any time, tell us exactly what
> really physically happens, in order for us to measure
> what SR says will be measured.
> SR, being only math, cannot give us what any
> normal person would want in a theory. Being only
> math, and thus a weak theory, SR can assume any
> number of math dimensions it cares to use. One could
> mathematically pick three (LET proves that 3-D will
> work perfectly), or SR could mathematically pick 4,
> or it could mathematically pick any number of
> dimensions. All you have to do is to add a few zeros
> here and there, but you can do it. The math does not
> care how many you want to use!
> Now of course math wise, you might find one
> choice of dimensions to be more efficient than
> another. But this has no meaning in deciding how
> many there might really be, it could physically be
> more or less. Many sciences have found math
> relationships that work well at a different number of
> dimensions than what is assumed in its working
> reality.
>
> But because SR is only a math theory, and because
> it is such a weak theory, so weak that it cannot tell
> anyone what is exactly really happening, this is one
> main reason why there are so many kooks in SR. SR
> just cannot adequate answer the problems as to what
> is really happening, and the kooks want to know what
> is really happening. And because of this weakness in
> SR, SR must be rejected as a theory. It is a poor
> theory. Anyone should be able to see just how poor
> of a theory it is, by seeing all these breaks in
> symmetry that occurs, and by all the jumps in time,
> back in time type occurrences in the theory.
>
> E) And what does having a physical based theory do
> for us? It puts the physical base in control, not
> the math. The physical base ends up defining the
> math, in placing limits on the math, in providing all
> the definitions of the math. The math cannot decide
> the number of dimensions. The math cannot run away
> with itself, and use imaginary numbers, or do
> anything that cannot be supported by the physical
> base.
>
> F) So what is the debate? From my point of view,
> there is no longer any debate that can be made. The
> facts are all in, and it is clear that this is the
> correct relationship between SR and LET.
> There are many advantages in combining these two
> theories. First of all, a great simplification is
> obtained in SR. You immediately remove this silly
> and impossible 4-D spacetime continuum concept as a
> real thing. It remains useful, as a math aid, but it
> has no physical meaning. We immediately lose all
> these breaks in symmetry that now exists in SR. We
> gain an understanding of what is physically happening
> in order for our measurements to show what they show.
> The benefits are almost endless. We will even get
> rid of all the kooks that now exist. We will be able
> to explain to anyone why things appear to be so
> weird.
>
> G) So why is this approach not taken? Because
> everyone is stupid? No! It is a little more
> complicated than this. First, from a practical point
> of view, such a change is not necessary in terms of
> our abilities to make correct predictions. SR is the
> correct math, and no one can be forced to make any
> change! And it is hard to get people to admit to
> having made a mistake.
> And for the elites, there is some power in
> maintaining SR. SR is abnormal, and so people who
> say that they can handle SR become above normal,
> become looked up to, become able to have respect.
> And no one seems willing to lose all this.
> The power of money, position, research grants, all
> these things are protected by having a science that
> only experts can understand. And thus, the problem
> is not really a science problem, it is a weakness of
> human beings having to face the normal problems of
> life. But science will eventually win, and we will
> eventually have an ether, by one name of another.
> And we will eventually know that this all occurs in a
> simple 3-D space, with real changes in the rates of
> clocks, and real changes in the length of rulers.
> But it seems that none of this is going to occur
> in my day. Today, we have too much power grab going
> on, too much politics, too much concern with making
> sure that only certain people get recognized and get
> all the grants that are available. But I am correct,
> and that is all I need to know. LET is superior, and
> SR is only the math.
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... since it is the same math as LET! ... >whether ether can explain all noncontact ... derived from a physical base. ... >5) the laws of 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)
  • Re: Physics versus Mathematics
    ...  Bend your math anyway you like. ... Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force. ... can't quite do the same for gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... accordance with the equations of relativity. ... But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)