Re: O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
- From: xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 12 Aug 2006 10:47:10 -0700
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Title: The Absolute Reference Frame
By: Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
(Remove 3 dots for e-mail.)
Date: 11 Aug 2006
The Lorentz ether theory (LET) is basically
correct. To more fully modernize it, we have to
state that all forces presently known appear to
follow the same mechanics as the electrical forces.
Once this is assumed, then LET becomes as universal
as Special Relativity (SR.)
The fact that this has to be assumed for LET is
not a sign of weakness for LET. In SR it is
automatically assumed that SR applies to all forces.
To assume the same thing in LET is really no
different. Both LET and SR were originally
formulated back when only electrical forces were of
concern. Since SR was the active science while
additional forces were appearing, and they were
observed to fit into an SR approach, then they were
automatically included in the existing science, as
would be expected. LET was totally dormant during
these times, and was never brought up to date by any
specific recognized group of people. Therefore,
these differences are more due to an accident of
history than to any scientific factor.
To understand the true relationship between SR and
LET, we can say that LET is the correct physics for
our reality, and SR is the correct math for our
reality. Thus, these two theories are really the
same theory. They are not the same in terms of the
assumptions upon which they are based, but they are
the same in terms of their results. In terms of
their final equations, the equations that refer to
what will be measured, they are the same.
Thus, in terms of any test result that involves a
measurement, one theory cannot be correct without the
other being correct. Any test measurement that
confirms one, confirms the other. To fail LET, one
would have to fail SR, if the failure is one of test
data or measurement. This is a most strange
relationship. It has never occurred as strong as
this before. And the only reason anyone can assign
to this is that they really are the same theory.
It must be said that LET begins at a lower level
than SR. LET begins with assumptions as to what
physical things (clocks, rulers and light) do, and
from these physical acts, then LET determines what
will be measured. The results of the physical base
produces a situation where all frames have the
appearance of being the same. It is at this point
that SR begins, after all the physical explanations
have been accomplished.
Once we reach this point of understanding, then we
can no longer allow people to think that these two
theories stand in opposition to each other. It is
important that we understand both theories, and how
they support each other.
Now as we do this, let us be as clear as we can
be. Lorentz provided us with many concepts about his
theory. For one example, he believed that there were
free electrons throughout free space. Such thoughts
have many benefits. But we do not have to accept any
of these explanations. All that we have to really
accept, to have SR, is very simple. All we really
have to accept is just the mechanics. We do not have
to consider the existing of electrons, or any of the
explanations of why c is c. All we really need to
accept is as follows:
a. Lv = Lo (1-(v/c)^2)^0.5
b. Rv = Ro (1-(v/c)^2)^0.5
c. c = the constant velocity for light
in free space
where Lo is the length of a ruler at rest in
the ether. Lv is the length of the same ruler
when it is moving in the direction of its length
with absolute velocity v. Ro is the rate of a
clock at rest in the ether. Rv is the rate of
this same clock with absolute velocity of v.
By making these three simple assumptions, we find
it adequate to develop SR. Therefore, all of the
ancient explanations of why all these things are true
are not critical to the theory. Full support can
still be given to SR, and then as the theory
develops, science can fill in the details as how and
why these things physically occur. Such an approach
allows us to include all the other forces, and the
addressing of the causes for all forces to result in
the same mechanics can be addresses as our knowledge
expands.
It is clear that physically there has to be an
absolute reference frame so that all events can be
coordinated. The free space at any one point has to
be the same as any other free point of space, or else
photons could not really know exactly how fast to
move. And rulers would not know how far to shorten,
and clocks would not know how much to slow their
rates. Only an absolute reference could do all these
things.
And LET explains to us why this absolute frame
results in all other inertial frames producing the
same form of math as the absolute frame, and thus the
absolute frame becomes lost in the middle of all the
other frames.
With all this for a background, then we are
ready to understand why our reality is so difficult
to understand. Because of the three rules assumed in
LET; a, b and c; then we know that the tools we have
and must use to make our measurements (our rulers and
our clocks) are changeable tools. And being
changeable, then what we measure with these tools
might not be what reality really is. Thus, we have
two realities. We have the real reality, the reality
of what actually happens, and then we have the
reality that is measured. The measured reality is
what is given to us by SR.
Let us repeat the above, since it is so important:
SR is an approach that presents to us the world as it
will be measured. This science is vital, and is
absolutely necessary, and must be studied and
understood. It is our first and most direct link to
reality. But it is not our reality. A more basic
reality exists below the measurements, and this is
what LET addresses.
What is measured (and as it is presented in SR)
can become very confusing, with breaks in symmetries,
with jumps in times, with some results that can
appear to be paradoxes. But with a knowledge of
LET, then we see that all real physical acts are
always very simple, with no true breaks in
symmetries, with no real jumps in times, etc. With
SR, one can always tell one another that all this is
true, but in LET, it is absolutely established to be
correct.
Let me conclude with some comments about what is
actually occurring. We have to know, that because of
the nature of our physics, we cannot presently know
when we are in our absolute reference frame. And
thus, we cannot at present know for sure how much
difference there might be between what we are
measuring and in what is actually occurring.
But we definitely know that if we were in our
absolute reference frame, that in this frame, all
rulers would be perfect in their lengths, and all
clocks would be perfect in their rates, and the syncs
would all be a perfect absolute sync. Thus, all our
test results would be a correct match to what reality
was really doing. And with these perfect tools, we
would measure the length of mover rulers to shorten,
and rates of clocks to slow. And these measurements
would all be absolutely correct, proving that such
acts are correct and real.
Thus, even though we might not really know what
things are really doing in any frame we might now
exist in, we do know that there are real changes
going on. And depending of course which direction we
might be measuring, as compared to which frame we
might be in, we from time to time might be making
measurements that are very close to actual acts.
It is important that we come to see these correct
relationships between LET and SR. It is important to
our ultimate progress. It is important to our
personal sanity. It is important so that we know
where to look for our next advancement in science.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
xxein: How come it took you so long to express yourself in this way?
I shouldn't talk because this is what I have come to understand also,
and didn't find the words to describe it as you have done. I must
confess that I didn't think that you would come to this succinct
conclusion. It is not part of your history.
But I have an 'out'. I still realise that when one attempts to explain
something like this, gravity will say that you would not be as
'complete' as GTR. Where is LET with gravity? It isn't. LET was left
in the bullrushes as Einstein captured the day. But that was 90 yrs.
ago!
Although you didn't say it this way, SR is a correct math-measurement
for what we will measure. The fact that this concept allows GR to
function in the same way (with an additional concept - curved
spacetime) is no sure-fire solution to a physic other than that it is a
workable and allowable concept for such a math-measurement theory.
The real-actual physic is different, as you have already figured out,
but it still lacks the gravity consideration. This is where I step in
(and can't find the words to explain it to SR-GR diehards in a
language-concept that they will accept). So I don't really try hard to
explain LET-SR to them (and hardly a real gravity for the GR).
You mentioned an absolute frame. Well, there is none that appears
forthcoming from your great post. Universal expansion and gravity will
take that away. But there is a frame that allows us to consider it as
absolute much the same way as SR is a special case of GR.
Follow the energy. Gravity is the fluid dynamic of energy. Source,
movement, equilibrium/time and sinks. I don't know why matter is tied
up in energy knots, but I do know that matter requires energy to defeat
inertia in its circular or helical innards. Matter rides on the
river/flow of the energy without friction (stay in motion). But the
energy requirement of being matter also causes 1/r^2 for the inward
velocity of energy around a mass. This causes any mass to accelerate
to mass and v v.
All LET lacked was a gravity expressed in its own terms like SR-GR.
Guessing a good or proper context/conception for LET appears to have
almost everyone stymied. That's why I call my theory/concept 'the ugly
duck'. But it works to high heaven.
.
- References:
- O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
- Prev by Date: Re: the Lorentz transformation.
- Next by Date: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution?
- Previous by thread: Re: O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
- Next by thread: "Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
