Re: O'Barr>Reality!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . . .

[snip]

O'Barr wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
It really depends on the reason why something
is not seen. If there is a good, sound, logical reason,
then you have no leg to stand on.

[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* . . .

And it will never be beneficial as long as it is treated
as you treat it. Anyone with a brain knows that SR has
been useful. The problem is, anyone with a brain should
also know that LET would have been just as useful in
all the ways that SR has been useful. It does result
in the exact same effective math.

<deletes>

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.


O'Barr comments:
Absolute motion is just as measureable as any
other motion. To be scientific, you should just
say that we are not able to know when we measure
it, that we are measuring it. That is much different
than what you seem to want to imply.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SR says that there is no *physical*
change associated with a change in length, but does not require an
unmeasurable absolute motion.

O'Barr comments:
And is anyone to understand any of what you have
just said? Changes but no changes? Your very way
of saying it makes you crazy and non-sensical and
stupid and impossible. You have no science at all.
SR has no physical logic to anything, and there is
not one thing you can honestly explain. Just look
at what you said above! With LET, there is no
double talk. Everything is clear and direct!

<deletes>

O'Barr wrote (about the potential values of mometum):
There are no physical changes at all. All you are
doing is using a difference math base or reference.

PD wrote:
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?

O'Barr comments:
The science tells you all this. In LET, you can really get a change
in length only because the tools change, with no physical change in
the object being emasured. So what you say occurs can occur. But it
cannot always be this way. The logic demands that there must be
a change if there are more changes than what can be attributed to
just changes in rulers. And is SR, you refuse to see these limits.


[snip]


[snip]

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

O'Barr comments:
To be scientific, one does not say that 3-D is valid because
we find 1-D and 2-D to work. 3-D must stand on its own.
And the same for 4-D. If 4-D cannot stand on its own,
as a part of the other three dimensions, then it is not
acceptable! And the 4-D of SR is not directly a part of
the other dimensions. It is different! SR fails the test.

[snip]

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... Physics is a study of the measurable and the ... generates the same math but without requiring absolute motion. ... fact *how* it makes that distinction is illuminating. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The real numbers and time exist as concepts in theoryland
    ... Conventions, such as what are standard ontologies ... I doubt I would want to provide an "emperical theory for time." ... >> No. Math is a part of the language of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... You don't even want to understand the language of physics. ... It would simply mean the cause would not always precede effect. ... guidance on your reading of relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Physics and Reality...
    ... > clearly separate maths from reality, ... When investigating the foundations of physics, ... "disover" electromagnetic phenomena; 4. ...
    (sci.physics)