Re: O'Barr>Reality!

In <1138681138.073595.31270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>   . . .
> [snip]

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Likewise, most folks for centuries assumed that
>>>motion was an intrinsic property of an object,
>>>that
>>>an object had a "true", objective, observer-
>>>independent state of motion.  We know now, of
>>>course, that this is not true . . .

O'Barr wrote:   . . .
>>    Over my dead body!  What you are saying is
>> something that you have no scientific right to
>> say.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>This fact, that an object does not have a "true",
>objective, observer-independent state of motion, has
>been known since Galileo's day. That's why it's
>called Galilean relativity.

O'Barr comments:
   LET, which is viable as far as present day science
allows, shows us that there really could be absolute
motion in our reality.  Therefore, it is unscientific
to say what you are saying as long as LET remains
viable.

O'Barr worte:
>> There is no science that exists that shows SR
>> interpretation is more correct than LET's
>> interpretation.  And yet, you allow yourself to
>> say this.  You allow yourself to say that
>> something is true when we do not know that it is
>> true.  How could
>> something so weird, so impossible, really be true?
>> You are a shame to the whole human race for making
>> such false statements!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Really?
>
>What is your absolute, "true", observer-independent
>velocity right now, as you sit there?

O'Barr comments:
   As is fully and completely scientifically
explained in LET, we end up with a situation where
such cannot presently be determined.  But this in no
way means it does not exist.  Surely your ability to
think is better than this!

   If you cannot understand these simple things, then
why waste more time on this subject.  Surely you know
these things.  So why are you being such a problem?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>and, more importantly, the laws of physics
>>>expressly indicate that absolute motion is neither
>>>required nor of particular use.

O'Barr comments:
>>  Technically you are correct: One does not have to
>> know their absolute motions in order to determine
>> what will be measured.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Moreover, everything that counts in physical law
>only depends on relative motions.  There is physical
>significance in that fact.

O'Barr comments:
   Not under an LET explanation.  Under LET, all
results are caused by and are due to their absolute
motions, which control all lengths and rates.  Since
you have a mind set that only allows you to function
in an SR mode, then you make yourself unscientific,
and impossible to talk to.  Why are you unable to
understand that scientifically, one cannot, as of
yet, ignore LET!  It has the same results as SR, and
thus it cannot yet be scientifically rejected.

O'Barr wrote:
>>  But if you want to understand what is happening,
>> then yes, you must know and understand that there
>> is an absolute motion, and how it affects
>> everything that moves.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think not.  There is nothing in physical law that
> requires or makes reference to any absolute motion.

O'Barr comments:
   Yes, but scientifically, in a completely
understandable way, LET shows why the math ends up
not needing the absolute values in order to make
predictions for any of our measurements.  But these
absolute actions must physically be there in order
for the math to work the way it works.
   These absolute functions do not disappear just
because they become mathematically cancelled out in
the final results.  Surely you cannot be this dumb!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Our error there was corrected without assuming
>>>that there is a hidden "flow" of energy that
>>>occurs when a single object appears to change its
>>>motion simply by changing the frame of reference
>>>of observation.

O'Barr wrote:
>>   It is exactly clear what you did in SR.  You
>> presented a theory where there are no explanations
>> at all.  You
>>  give no physical cause to anything.  You just
>> say such things like if you change frames, you
>> change your perspective, and thus you think that
>> because you attached some words to your
>> statements,
>> that you gave an explanation.  But your words are
>> hollow words, with no physical content.  You are
>> playing games, and now believe in your own game.
>> Shame, shame, shame!  You have no physical
>> explanations.  Why you do not even know what a
>> perspective is, let alone show how or why it
>> works.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>OK, according to someone driving in the right lane,
>a car that passes him has a velocity of 15 m/s and a
>momentum of 30,000 kg-m/s.  According to someone in
>the opposite lane, the car has a velocity of 70
>m/s and a momentum of 140,000 kg-m/s.  What was the
>physical cause of the latter giving the same car an
>extra 110,000 kg-m/s of momentum, just by looking at
>it from the other lane?  What is the physical
>*cause* of this change?

O'Barr comments:
   There are no physical changes at all.  All you are
doing is using a difference math base or reference.
To change you math base, you follow some very basic
rules.  These are all math steps, and are not
physical in any way what-so-ever.  This might be one
reason why we cannot communicate.  You only know
about math, and to you, math becomes the reality.
   And worse than all this, what you have shown has
nothing to do with SR changes in perspective.  Your
assumed problem exists in simple Newtonian physics.
And it has nothing at all to do with SR, and its
problems.  Did you want me to answer this in a
Newtonian way?


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Since in that case we are able to correct our
>>>misconception without resort to some physical
>>>process affecting the object, then we can also
>>>correct our misconception that a change in length
>>>requires some physical process affecting the
>>>object.

O'Barr wrote:
>>    Yes, what logic.  Because you are willing to
>> accept ignorance in one case, then it is smart to
>> accept ignorance again and again.  You use this
>> 'consistency' as proof that you are right.  But
>> this consistency is actually proof that you are
>>crazy!  How dare you be on this net!  How dare you
>>say you do not need physical processes!   This is
>>the reason why SR must be rejected, and why LET is
>>superior, and any thinking person knows this.  Only
>>those who have lost their common sense would think
>>otherwise.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Please use your common sense, then, to account for
>the physical change I just mentioned.  And please
>don't bother bristling with indignation --
>it doesn't add any credence to your thinking.

O'Barr comments:
   LET is the common sense I use.  It is a physical
theory, being based upon assumed physical acts
associated with physical motions in the ether, that
provides it with one to one correspondences.  What
occurs in LET is exactly known and follows all known
rules of causes and effects, in all ways required.
That is, the cause has proximity to the act, and it
is proportional to the act, and it is exactingly
repeatable.  It exactly and perfectly fits known
science, such as what a light clock would really do,
and what shape an equal potential surface would have
to take.  It is perfect, and it is understandable,
and uses the simplest physical approach that exists,
being in simple 3-D space.

<delete>

   You know, until you become a little more careful
in what you say, I see no reason to continue these
discussions.  Either you are smart enough to
understand the true situation with respect to LET, or
your not able to do this.  Please say you understand.
Otherwise, there would be no good to continue to
disagree.   In science, no one has to agree with
another, but anyone who is scientific has to be able
to understand the position of another scientific
person.  We have to agree to what the evidence is,
and you do not seem able to agree to what must be
able to be seen by all.  LET does work.  And it works
perfectly.  And as long as it does work, then no
scientific person can allow themselves to ignore it.

O'Barr wrote:
>>>>  . . .  SR does not and it cannot
>>>> tell us what space is so that it can be
>>>> affected by our motions in it.  SR cannot and
>>>> does
>>>> not tell us what physically happens so that our
>>>> perspective changes with our motions.  SR cannot
>>>> and does not tell us what actually happens in
>>>> any of the things done in SR.  It only tells us
>>>> that the measurements made, when made in a
>>>> certain way, will follow the predictions of the
>>>> math.  SR does not and cannot know anything more
>>>> than this!  SR does not know why, or how.  It
>>>> never has, and it never will.  Again, only LET
>>>> offers us some insight as to what is actually
>>>> happening, so that the results are as the math
>>>> shows it to be.

<deletes>


O'Barr wrote:
>>   But don't you see, you are assuming difficulties
>> where there might not be difficulties.  None of us
>> know yet what any of these explanations might be.
>> Since you seem to love our present day literature,
>> let me ask you, is charge associated with quarks?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  Yes, but not with gluons.

>> Are charges associated with leptons?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Not with neutrinos, no.

>> If charges are
>> associated in all these effects, then how can you
>> say that LET will not be a necessary part of the
>> explanation?  These explanations might be very
>> easy to present, once we try a little harder to
>> understand.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Then I suggest *that* is where you start, trying to
>reconcile the variety of behaviors that we now
>attribute to four *different* interactions to
>instead just the result of *one* interaction. If you
>can't do that, then the prior critique of LET
>stands.

O'Barr comments:
   Fine, as long as we see it only as a possibility,
not as direct evidence against it.  Definitely there
are differences in these four basic forces, but they
all do seem to interact with particles that have
charge.  Just as with your statement, there is no
proof that they are affected by charge, but there is
also no way of knowing that they are not interacting
with charge, if charge is always present.  And by the
way, even particles that have zero charge, often show
that change effects are there, so their zero charge
is only indicating that there is a net charge of
zero, not that charges are not there, and causing the
actions being seen.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> continues:
>>>This is not inconceivable, but considering that
>>>there would have to be three very different LET
>>>"corrections" to these theories that end up
>>>producing identical contractions and dilations as
>>>seen in electrodynamics, this prospect ends up
>>>looking quite unlikely, if not inconceivable.

O'Barr wrote:
>>   Again, you are only making these things up.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>No, sir.

>> As I said above, are not charges present in all
>>these effects?

>No, sir.

>> There are more reasons to think that all
>> forces are related to each other more than not
>> related, and you are not being fair to understand
>> this.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Moreover, no one has been able to come up with an
>>>LET theory that does what is required for the
>>>strong and weak forces, despite some effort.
>>>(There is a poster to this group that attempts to
>>>do that today, without success yet.)

O'Barr wrote:
>>  Sadly, there are lots of things that we cannot do
>> yet.  But the wise individual is the one who can
>> keep separate what things have not been done only
>> because we just do not know yet, from those things
>> that are proved to be impossible.  You did not do
>> this.

<deletes>

O'Barr wrote:
>>    You are missing the point.  I did not say that
>> only charges could account for what is seen.  What
>>I said was that charges are present in these
>>effects, and thus what I have been saying above is
>>important and has to be part of the solution.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Uh, no.  Apples have volume and color. One
>attribute does not necessarily contribute to the
>other.

O'Barr comments:
   Correct.  But apples also have mass and weight,
and sometimes these things go together.

>
> <deletes>

O'Barr wrote:
>>  You are not being open minded.  In the simple 3-D
>> of space, there are no questions to be asked.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I quite disagree about that.

O'Barr continues:
>> The dimensions are identical.  The results are
>>identical.  All areas of science (hundreds of
>>areas) all use this assumption of 3-D and all their
>>tests confirm it.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Many areas of science also use an assumption of 2-D
>and their tests confirm it.  This does not mean that
>the universe is 2D.

O'Barr comments:
   Certainly!  But if there is 3-D, then 2-D and 1-D
are also acceptable.  Are you trying to say that just
because 2-D works under certain circumstances, that
this means there cannot be 3 dimensions?

O'Barr wrote:
>> But in SR, you do not have the same dimensions.
>> It does make a difference which dimension is
>> includes time, and which does not.  It is totally
>> contrived, and you know this, and I know this.

<deletes>

O'Barr wrote:
>>>> The other is based upon
>>>> known and observable physics.  We do know what
>>>> an equal potential surface would do,

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Is an equipotential surface a 3D space, or
>>> evidence of a 3D space?

O'Barr wrote:
>>  Both.  Both concepts support each other.  Neither
>> would work unless the other was correct.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  That's incorrect.  You've never heard of a 2D
> equipotential?


O'Barr comments:
   And if there were 2D equal potential, is this
suppose to mean something?
   I do not think anything is being learned by these
long exchanges.  Why don't we pick one single subject
and see what we need to do to help each other.
 

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... What is your absolute, "true", observer-independent ... Physics is a study of the measurable and the ... requires or makes reference to any absolute motion. ... proof that they are affected by charge, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... What is your absolute, "true", observer-independent ... Physics is a study of the measurable and the ... requires or makes reference to any absolute motion. ... proof that they are affected by charge, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations
    ... >> People who persist in claiming that a transistor is physically a CCCS ... >> nonsense theoretical nonsense on the physics groups. ... The reality is that collector charge motion is not the result of base ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Episode from the history of physics.
    ... then the laws of physics are the cause of the wave. ... The laws of physics cannot CAUSE anything. ... There is nothing in electric charge that says, ... molecules are in random motion like the moles in an ideal gas is an ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of light revisited
    ... Do elementary particles have a charge? ... Charge is not motion. ... of physics, including how to apply Newton's laws. ... the company in which you worked in a scientific field. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading