Re: O'Barr>Reality!


Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
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.

I disagree, and I'll explain why. A theory is worthless if it is
experimentally indistinguishable from another theory -- that is, if it
makes no predictions that are observationally distinct. You are a
champion of LET, but there are other non-SR theories which *also*
propose a non-measurable ether that physically alters rulers and clocks
in such a way that the ether is undetectable. In this case, LET is
experimentally indistinguishable from those other theories, and there
is no way to determine -- no way -- which of these "physical" theories
is correct. At this point, each of these theories, including LET,
become useless. If there is no way to *experimentally* distinguish LET
from competing theories by virtue of a prediction of observable
phenomenon that no other theory makes, then LET is a dead theory.
That's the hard truth about science, pal.


[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

This is not known until it is demonstrated. Demonstrating that fact is
precisely where you should be spending your effort, rather than
bemoaning what could have been.

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.

Nonsense. When I measure momentum, I'm measuring it, even though the
value of that momentum depends on the frame of reference in which it is
being measured. Do you deny the reality of momentum, of velocity, of
kinetic energy?



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?

Absolutely. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing
observer-independent properties from observer-dependent properties. The
laws of physics have no difficulties making those distinctions, and in
fact *how* it makes that distinction is illuminating.

Anyone who denies the distinction also denies physics. Anyone who is
blind to the distinction is missing out on some of the key beauties and
symmetries of physics.


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.

You didn't answer the question. 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?



[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,

But it does.

as a part of the other three dimensions, then it is not
acceptable!

It's your test that fails. You are demanding that it be *Euclidean*
4-D, so that there is no change in signature from one dimension to the
next, and so that all the dimensions mix, like our 3-D space does.
However, 4-D spacetime is *not* Euclidean -- we knew that from the
start -- and so putting a Euclidean test to it is completely
inappropriate.

PD

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. ... that we are measuring it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: To John Drayton, on Intelligence
    ... that people make) and other things are subject to the fundamental laws ... laws of physics, but what are the characteristics seen in ... then there is no distinction, ... <snip detour into freewill and questions about the minds behind ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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: In an attempt to get Androcles / Hexenmeister to shut up.
    ... [snip, yes, snip I say] ... Isn't it easy when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you are ... That's what all you relativist arseholes do. ... You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Physics and Reality...
    ... > clearly separate maths from reality, ... When investigating the foundations of physics, ... "disover" electromagnetic phenomena; 4. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast