Re: O'Barr>Reality!


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138893985.776166.125590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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!

Ah, and this brings up the problem of the "there, but unmeasurable" or
"sterile" concepts. Physics is a study of the measurable and the
confirmable. If physics introduces a concept which is, even in
principle, unobservable, then it is of little use to science.

Another example is the right-handed neutrino. While it could exist, it
interacts with nothing. The standard model Lagrangian shows an
interaction term for left-handed neutrinos only. And if it doesn't
interact with anything and is therefore completely inaccessible to the
measurable world, is it a useless particle? Does a useless particle
exist?

[snip]
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.

I'm not rejecting it on the basis of observation. As you point out,
there is no *experimental* distinction between LET and SR in the arenas
where they have common application. The problem is that LET has not
been proven to be valuable *theoretically* in explaining the behavior
of the other interactions (gravity, strong, weak interactions) where SR
certainly has been helpful. Your championing of LET with the argument
"It hasn't been ruled out!" is certainly valid as far as it goes, but
the real issue becomes "What has it done for me lately?" Ultimately,
the onus of those supporting LET is to stop ranting that it hasn't been
ruled out, and get to work on the forward progress of the theory to
explain the behavior of the strong, weak, and gravitational
interactions. Without the latter, the former is just horn-blowing.


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.

According to LET, the absolute motion must be there. Note that SR
generates the same math but without requiring absolute motion. Thus
there is a tradeoff: LET provides a physical cause for a *physical*
change in length, but in the process requires absolute motion that is
not measurable, even in principle. SR says that there is no *physical*
change associated with a change in length, but does not require an
unmeasurable absolute motion.

These absolute functions do not disappear just
because they become mathematically cancelled out in
the final results. Surely you cannot be this dumb!

[snip]

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.

Precisely. And yet when the same thing is maintained about length, all
of a sudden you proclaim "Can't be! How can an object change the
numerical value of its length without there being a physical cause to
produce that change?" In other words, what is *inherently* different
about length and momentum, such that a change in reference frame that
alters the former is objectionable, but a change in reference frame
that alters the latter is not objectionable at all?

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?

SR adds nothing. It simply notes that the laws of electrodynamics must
be invariant in all inertial frames *in exactly the same way that the
laws of Newtonian mechanics are*, and that as a result some measured
quantities turn out to be observer-dependent *in exactly the same way
this happens other measured quantities in Newtonian mechanics." SR
makes no fundamental leaps beyond the known laws of physics, it simply
makes explicit notice of what those laws imply.

[snip]


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.

That's fine. Note that neutrinos do not have charge (at all), and yet
they interact via the weak interaction. Note that gluons do not have
charge, and yet they interact via the strong interaction. Note that the
electrodynamic interaction of protons in the nucleus due to their
charge is easily calculated and well-known, but that their observed
*behavior* is not consistent with that known interaction, and this
strongly suggests that there is something *else* going on with protons,
some *other* way they interact than the electrodynamic one that
involves their charge. This is one way (out of many) that we know there
is a strong interaction that is quite distinct from the electrodynamic
one.

[snip]


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?

Certainly not. Are you trying to say that just because 3-D works under
certain circumstances, this means there cannot be 4 dimensions?

[snip]

Thanks for reading.

PD



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... >>>independent state of motion. ... LET, which is viable as far as present day science allows, shows us that there really could be absolute motion in our reality. ... Your assumed problem exists in simple Newtonian physics. ... Definitely there are differences in these four basic forces, but they all do seem to interact with particles that have 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: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... theory, it is modern physics. ... The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by ... That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. ... electrostatic charge. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... theory, it is modern physics. ... The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by ... That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. ... electrostatic charge. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... theory, it is modern physics. ... The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by ... That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. ... electrostatic charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)