Re: O'Barr: Changes in lengths and rates are real!

In <1141857214.431888.185000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .

<delete by O'Barr>

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... in SR just as in LET, there are real effects
on measurements that are inherent to the
measurement that do not reflect a physical
alteration of the object being measured.

O'Barr comments:
Thank you for saying this. This is exactly
correct. Since SR and LET are the same theory, then
of courses this has to be correct for some of the
problems in SR. The error made by SR experts is that
they are not willing to see that under some
circumstances, there are other problems where these
changes are real.

O'Barr wrote:
In LET, we of course know that many changes are
only apparent changes. Many changes do not
involve any change at all in the things being
measured. The changes can be due to changes in
the tools being used. So yes, what SR experts say
can be true, in a very real sense. But what SR
experts do not say, is that when you have a
complicated problem, where there are changes in
frames, etc., that in order to have a
change in your tools would itself require there to
be real changes, if not in the objects being
measured, then in the tools being used.
Therefore, we find the SR experts to be dishonest
in all this. They want to maintain that all
changes are imaginary, and this of
course is physically and logically impossible
under those conditions where more than one
directional change is involved.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hogwash. This both misrepresents what SR says and
also misrepresents what is physically and logically
impossible.

O'Barr comments:
You are responding to a very long paragraph. Why
not state, in your own words, exactly what it is that
you find to be wrong. Tell us both what it is that
is wrong and then tell us the correct way to say it.
If you do not do this, then how do you expect us to
have any kind of progress in this post?

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
. . . to my knowledge, all the assumptions
made in SR can also be made in LET. Do
you have any math in SR that is not allowed to be
assumed to be correct in LET?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's not a matter of whether it is *allowed* to be
assumed to be correct in LET.

O'Barr comments:
Yes it is. If it is allowed to be assumed to be
correct, then it is allowed. And thus in LET, one
can do the exact same things that are done in SR.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The question is whether it is *in fact* assumed to
be correct in LET. You may have dreams upon dreams
of what LET may be capable of, but as of tody it is
not capable of it. If you want your dreams to come
true, then do the work and make LET capable of it
instead of spouting that it seems likely to you to
be capable of it.

O'Barr comments:
If anyone fails to assume something that could and
should be assumed, this is not LET's fault! And it
is not my fault if I do not jump through loops for
you. Just because I am the least one on this net
does not mean that you have any right to ignore
obvious things.

<more deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
The domain for LET and SR are identical!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nope. SR explains what it means for a theory to be
manifestly 4-D Poincare covariant. This is outside
the scope of LET.

O'Barr comments:
You have a blind eye to things. In LET, there is
clear and exact separation between math things and
physical things. And the math of LET is totally
capable of being expressed in the exact same form as
SR's math. The interpretation of the math is, of
course, different. But the ability to have the same
math symmetry, the same predictive math results, is
exactly the same between both theories.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The theories that are informed by what SR says and
what LET is silent about, have been wildly
successful as a result of that insight. The domains
are not the same.

O'Barr comments:
I believer you have confused, on purpose, the use
of the word 'domain.' In the domain of gravity free
space, SR and LET both apply. This 'domain' is a
physical condition of the region in which these
theories are used. But I think you are trying to say
that SR is used in certain areas of science in which
LET is not use, and you want to say that these are
different domains. This is not the proper way to
criticize these two theories. The use in these other
areas is a choice done by men, it is not a choice
dictated by the physical problem. Stop being so
unfair!
Let me say it again so that you cannot mistake
this situation: SR and LET are valid in the exact
same physical domain. Either is free to be used.
Depending on the problem, one or the other might be
easier to use, but they both will produce the exact
same answer.

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
... so far, you haven't given any examples of
this. Is there a reason you do not give any
examples?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK, then I suggest you start by showing how the
Dirac equation arises from applying LET to the
Schrodinger equation. That's for starters.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry. I think you misunderstood the
problem. You are supposed to show it, not me. For
starters, why don't you show how LET cannot do the
same thing that SR can do.
You infer that you apply SR to the Schrodinger
equation. You can say what ever you want. So show
the steps and assumptions that has to be used to do
this, and then show us why LET cannot, step by step,
do the exact same thing. Are you having difficulty
because you do not understand how in LET one can
conclude that all frames are equal, on a measurement
level? That as far as our measurement system is
concerned, we are going to have the appearance of
exactly what SR begins with, as for as a base
assumption? What is you problem?

O'Barr wrote:
'Implications' sure sounds like a funny
way to say these things. I think this means you
only think that something is true, and this is all
it is, I am sure. You just want to 'imply' that
SR is somehow different.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, it's a fact. I expect you to do the work to
understand why.

O'Barr comments:
Come on, Paul! What is a fact? If you cannot say
exactly what you mean, this whole post is a waste of
time. And what do you mean, that I have to work in
order to understand. I have done my homework, and I
do understand SR and LET, and how they end up being
the same theory. You seem to be the one who does not
understand. Maybe it is you who need to do some
work.

<deletes>

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When you *demonstrate* that LET *is* in fact as
fertile as SR, then we'll know that it is just as
fertile. Until you demonstrate that fact, the
evidence so far is that it is not.

O'Barr comments:
Fertility is important. SR has been fertile
because, first of all, it is correct science as far
as it's math. Being the same math theory as LET it
has to be fertile. The question here is not whether
or not SR has been successful. The question is, LET
is, step by step, just as fertile as SR, since they
are the exact same theory. If you cannot see this,
it is only your own limitation at work. There is
nothing I can do about it if you refuse to see the
obvious. The only reason why one is consider to be
better is only because they accept the wrong
interpretation, not because of the fertility of the
science.

O'Barr wrote:
But you see, simplicity is not a matter of taste.
Simplicity is not able to be ignored at will. 3-D
is simpler than 4-D. This is a fact no matter
what else might be considered or believed.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, but the simplicity of 3D comes at the expense
of
a) explaining how the effects of four different
interactions are in fact different ramifications of
the same fundamental interaction (the
electromagnetic interaction), and what the
peculiarities of the circumstances are to make the
electromagnetic interaction look decidedly non-
electromagnetic; OR
b) explaining why and how there are four different
Lorentz-ether corrections for each of the four
fundamental interactions that end up having
*exactly* the same effect, even though the
interactions are much, much different.

O'Barr comments:
And you are totally crazy! SR does not explain
anything. You think SR is so great only because it
explains nothing, and so you don't have to think of
causes. SR does not even explain c, it is just an
assumption. As said, SR explains nothing!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You take your choice. The penalty for the relative
simplicity of 3D is one of the above. You can't
sweep it under the rug. Most physicists have
weighed this tradeoff and found no particular reason
to shun 4D in the balance.

O'Barr comments:
Far more important than what anyone thinks, is
reality itself and the science we have of this
reality. The science says that it is at this time
scientifically impossible to decide between LET and
SR. But the SR experts are not honest, and they
force things to go SR even when the science does not
require it. And they purposely fail to tell everyone
about this. (Just look at the FAQ.) This dishonesty
is unscientific. And now that we have a fair amount
of proof that real changes are going on, then LET
wins!

O'Barr wrote:
The position that I am presenting, that LET is
superior to SR, is not arguable. It is not
something anyone can decide just because they want
to decide. Science does not work that way. LET
is physically simpler. LET is workable, with
simple logic, with simple causes and effects in
place, with simple explanations, with simple
understanding, with simple Newtonian like
mechanics. And no one has the right to ignore such
simplicity. In LET, all the paradoxes are removed,
even apparent paradoxes do not exist in LET.
SR is a sick science. It maintains things that
are not testable (such as your 4-D spacetime
continuums.)

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know where you get the idea that it is not
testable.

O'Barr comments:
As long as LET provides a simple 3-D explanation
for every 4-D calculation made in SR, then no test
can be found to separate these two approaches. It is
impossible.

O'Barr wrote:
...(SR) will eventually have to be rejected.
And then we will laugh at what was being said, by
those who were supporting 'a religion,' and even in
the face of direct evidence, turned away. This is
all most serious, and all these fun and games will
soon be seen for what they are. You cannot have
changes, and yet no changes.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is what Seto and Wilson have problems with,
too. They do not understand that there are
properties of objects that are observer-dependent
and there are properties that are not observer-
dependent.

If I view a satellite from the perspective of an
airplane, it has a momentum of 17.3E6 kg-m/s. If
someone else views the *same* satellite at the same
time from the Space Shuttle, it has a moentum of
3.3E5 kg-m/s. Now suppose you tell me how that
property can change without changing something about
the satellite, since you believe that change without
change is physically impossible.

O'Barr comments:
I do not feel good about using other people's
names when they are not directly involved. And it is
totally unfair for you to use situation where
relationships are obviously relative, and infer that
this shows that this means that all relationships
have to be just relative.
When correct SR measurements are made, one uses
local ruler positions and local clock times of a
linear inertial system. And thus complete and direct
correlations are established, exactly as it is
demanded in LET. So there is never any 'bending' or
'changes in perspective' or '4-D' that can appear in
SR or in LET, since everything is local, fixed, and
inertial. And these grids of rulers and these clocks
that are inertial are fixed. And if they measure a
series of changes (that is, more than two sets of
changes), then some of these changes must be real
because the math only allows two sets of 'changes' to
be common. The math cannot allow more than one
common set. QED

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis, ... an essential tool of science, ... They did their math, made predictions, then observed to see if the ... If the Earth was formed hot and then cooled over time, physicists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... the math is correct in predicting what ... No philosophy that I know of would allow ... data is only measurement data, ... science, but you are not. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is this math test too easy?
    ... >> part of their intelligence, such as math, after having been very poor on ... > Only because so many physicists are now mathematicians. ... under the mathematician Poincare. ... > IQ is a measurement of general intelligence, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... Science is not based upon the words ... the math to be correct. ... limitations by the present day physicists. ... Why are there three dimensions? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: BBC 100 Most Popular books
    ... Science is math. ... Math has plenty of proofs, and science, well, it at least has ... I've been studying Karl Popper lately.) ... Physicists. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)