The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Aug 2006 22:06:42 -0700
The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
Introduction and Overview:
The Theory of Special Relativity (SR) has now
been upon this earth for over a hundred years. There
have been few if any theories that have been as
perfect as SR, either in terms of its exactness, or
in the range of physics over which it applies. It
seems as if its only limitation is with respect to
gravity. Yet this very article is an attempt to
destroy SR.
There is no desire to destroy the math of SR. Its
predictive powers are most acceptable. But I intend
to destroy it as being an acceptable interpretation
of our reality. Today, SR is used to support a
concept of having a 4-D reality, having within it a
4-D spacetime continuum, having within it breaks in
symmetry, having within it jumps in times. I want to
remove all these aspects to this theory.
To destroy a theory is most easily done by finding
a better theory. I am not sure that 'the other
theory' is much better than SR, but it certainly is
equal to it. The 'other theory' is the Lorentz ether
theory (LET.) What this theory ends up doing is
having the same math as SR. Therefore, with LET
having the same math (the Lorentz transforms), then
the new theory is mathematically exactly the same as
SR. With the same math, then LET is exactly as
perfect as SR. These two theories make the exact
same math predictions. And LET's application covers
the same range as SR.
Between these two theories, we have all these
equalities as mentioned above. But LET is better
than SR in several important respects: With LET,
everything that occurs with the math of LET is now
connected to specific physical acts that are clear
and understandable. These physical acts are clear
and understandable because they all occur in simple
3-D space.
Thus, in LET, we can have all the same events that
exist in SR. We can have 4-D math. We can have
jumps in times. We can have breaks in symmetry. But
all these events are confined to the math, and they
do not exist in the physics down below the math.
These features (any one or all) make LET superior to
SR.
The approach:
I know that one article will not be sufficient to
accomplish what needs to be accomplished. But one
article should be enough to explain the effort and
how to proceed. In order to accomplish this effort,
I believe we must first correct several
misconceptions that sometimes exist. These
misconceptions are:
1) The MMX disproved the ether.
2) 4-D is simpler than 3-D.
3) That there are no fundamental weaknesses with SR.
Once we have some of these misconceptions
corrected, then we will be able to state in more
positive terms the correctness of the LET approach.
Misconception 1): The MMX disproved the ether.
Over the last hundred years, a large number of SR
experts have said that the MMX proved that there was
no ether. And they say this to preclude any more
discussions about the ether. Let us understand this
statement. It really is not a lie. At the time the
MMX was conducted, it did disprove all existing ether
theories. But what should these experts say? Not
only did the MMX disprove all existing ether theories
at the time it was conducted, it also disproved all
theories that then existed. It even disproved
Newtonian mechanics. And new theories of the ether
have now been presented that is compatible with the
MMX. In fact, the MMX proves that there is an ether,
since if the MMX was able to adjust itself to its
motion, there had to be something in space to allow
for these adjustments, and to allow for the exact
right amount of adjustment.
The MMX, using hindsight, was probably the most
important test that had ever been conducted. It was
the MMX that showed, for the very first time, that
what was being measured was not what was occurring.
Such a thought was a new thought, and people did not
really know what was going on. But this was the
problem.
We saw, for the first time, an indication that
measurement tools could change as they were being
used. And thus, what they measured could not be the
full results of what was going on.
It was at this point that we had to consider more
than one thing: Not only did we have to make a
measurement, but we also had to then determine what
really happened, down below the measurement. We did
not really know what we were really doing, but SR
made a decision for us. SR said, look, we are not
going to consider this to be a problem, we are just
going to just take what we measure, and that is going
to be our science. We only care on what is measured.
We do not care about more than this.
And thus, SR was born. SR is a measurement
science. It tells us how to make our measurements.
It tells us how to set up a measurement grid, how to
place our clocks, how to sync our clocks. It tells
us what we will measure, if we use such a system. It
ignores what might be going on down below the
measurements.
LET takes a different approach. LET wants to know
what is really going on. It starts with making
physical assumptions. And from these physical
assumptions, then it decides what will be measured.
And since we now know that the SR measurement theory
is correct, because the results of extensive testing
has shown that it is correct, then we also know that
LET is correct, because it also ends up with the same
math as SR, when you use the measurement math of LET.
In case you missed it, let us repeat what was
said. MMX did disprove all theories that existed at
the time the MMX was first done. Thus, one could say
that the MMX disproved all the then existing ether
theories. But Lorentz said that the results of the
MMX could be explained if the measurement tools (the
rulers, the lengths of the parts being used) changed.
With such changes, then the results of such tests
were not producing the correct results.
SR gives us the correct answers for these
incorrect results, and SR lives with these incorrect
answers. But LET tells us that down below these
measurements, there are other things really
occurring. And thus, LET is a deeper, more solid
based theory than SR. It is therefore superior to
SR.
Misconception 2): 4-D is simpler than 3-D.
SR experts like the simplicity of their 4-D math
approach. When we talk about all this simplicity, I
like to remind everyone that when SR was first
presented, there was no spacetime continuum. Such an
approach as 4-D occurred some time later. There is
no need for 4-D in SR, either as Einstein presented
it, or how Lorentz presented the same math results.
Simple 3-D space works perfectly. And anyone who
thinks, knows that simple 3-D is far simpler than 4-
D. 4-D is so complicated that it cannot even be
imagined in the human mind. Sure, the math can be
handled. The math might be easy. But the physical
aspects are impossible.
Misconception 3): That there are no fundamental
weaknesses with SR.
The most important thing about science is knowing
the limits. We know that SR has limits, such that it
is only a free space science. But I am not talking
about limits in its applications. I am talking about
fundamental limits to the theory. All theories have
weaknesses. If these weaknesses are not being
mentioned and presented, then you have to know that
there is very poor science involved.
What are some of the fundamental weaknesses in SR?
I would like to mention at least two of them.
1) SR has no cause and effect relationships.
2) SR is only math.
Each of the above is very important. They are
about as fundamental as any theory could be. Let us
look at one lack of cause and effect:
Weakness 1): SR has no cause and effect
Relationships.
In any standard physics, cause and effects are
critical in having an acceptable theory. For all
causes, there must be an effect; for all effects,
there must be a cause. These causes and effects must
have some time constraints. Effects cannot precede
the cause. These cause and effects must also be
proportional, and causes must have certain
appropriate inherent characteristics both in terms of
their proximity and energy or size of effect to
result in what is seen.
But SR does not have such things. Take a rocket
ship placed on a line that extends to a nearby star.
They measure the speed of a photon from this star to
pass the rocket ship with a velocity of c. They then
blast off towards this star, burning millions of
gallons of fuel, accelerating and accelerating, up to
a change in velocity of one-half c.
At this time, they re-measure the velocity of a
photon coming from this star. What do they get?
They get no change at all. With all this change in
velocity of the rocket ship, a change that should
have shown at least a first order effect, showed no
effect at all! This is a true paradox. It is
unexplainable. It is physically impossible to really
be true. It fully and completely violates all cause
and effect relationships! And SR provides to us not
one single explanation. It is a sad theory indeed.
Weakness 2): SR is only math.
SR is derived based upon just two simple math
assumptions: The speed of light is a math constant,
c. And the form of the math equations are of the
same form in all frames. There are no physical bases
presented that allows any of these math assumptions
to be made.
Thus, again, we have a theory that has no physical
cause and effects.
These are fundamental weaknesses in the theory of
SR. Any theory that has no physical explanations is
weak. Any theory that has no cause and effects is
weak. SR is about as weak of a theory that anyone
would want. It is only math. It only provides
measurement results. It does all this without any
explanations or justification.
Once we understand a few of these things, then it
is appropriate to consider LET. It is appropriate to
also consider all the fundamental weaknesses in LET.
All theories have weaknesses. And LET has its
weaknesses. But it is silly, to have a physics, such
as SR, and not have formal recognition of its
weaknesses, especially those weaknesses that do not
exist in a competing theory. It is time we make such
a scientific comparison. And I believe that when we
do this fairly and honestly, we will accept LET as a
superior approach.
At least, that is my opinion, and this has to be
true until we have a test that can properly separate
these two theories.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
- Prev by Date: Re: O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
- Next by Date: Re: Clock synch
- Previous by thread: Re: LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS ARE UNABLE TO DESCRIBE THERELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
- Next by thread: Re: The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
