Re: Our greatest problem!

Subject: Re: Our greatest problem!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Our greatest problem!

The greatest problem we face in today's physics
is: This illogical belief in SR!

Today, SR is seen as the correct physics for free
space work. Why is it accepted? Because it is
the correct math. It provides to us the correct
predictions. . . . . .


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> cut off some
additional statements and says:
It is actually more than that. It is most likely
the right conceptual basis as well. Please do not
confuse "right" with "familiar" or "intuitive".
"Familiar" and "intuitive" are no indicators of
correctness.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, PD. Your comments are baseless, and
unscientific. Science is not based upon the words
you are throwing around. Science is not a vote,
where you get to choose the most likely! Science
requires a test, or a series of tests, where the
decision is based upon the results of the tests, and
not by what might seem to be the most reasonable, or
the most familiar, or the most intuitive. And in
exactly the same way, no one gets to choose the most
unfamiliar, or the most non-intuitive. You are sick
to infer that any of these types of choices can be
scientifically made. This is not how science works!
If SR is scientifically superior to LET, then
there has to be a scientific test, designed to
clearly and directly to distinguish between these two
theories, that produces results to indicate which is
the superior. Such tests do not exist. That is why
you did not present such a test, and that is why you
go into these long 'word arguments' that have no
relationship to science at all. Shame on you, and
shame on all the others who refuse to recognize that
these two theories are the same theory, and cannot be
scientifically separated!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps what you mean to ask is, "Why is that the
simple, mechanistic, deterministic way of thinking
that seems to work so well in our little domain of
the familiar, seem to fail so spectacularly outside
of that little domain? Why shouldn't the familiar
extend to all of reality?"

O'Barr comments:
Certainly you seem to want to know the answers to
many interesting questions. But if you
scientifically really want to know these answers, you
need to know that you need to make scientific tests
to determine if any of these questions are even
important. You infer, why should the familiar extend
to all of reality? Well, it might not. But if there
is a familiar way that does extend to all of reality,
would you reject it? Be sure that your attitude is
not one of ignorance and stupidity! No one should
dare infer that we must accept the non-familiar, when
there is existing a familiar way that produces the
exact same results! You cannot and should not reject
the familiar without reason, without test results
that demand it. How dare you do what you do, and
have no reason to do it except that you just want to
do it. It is mind-boggling what you are doing, and
it must come to an end!

O'Barr wrote about SR (and LET):
It is the proper free space limit
that exists in GR.

However, in spite of all the perfections that
exist in SR, it is not complete. SR cannot tell
us what is actually happening to allow or to cause
the math to be correct. Why do we measure the same
velocity for all free space photons? How is that
possible, even when the tools being used to make
these measurements are themselves all moving at
different velocities at the time they make their
measurements? All That SR can tell us, it that it
just is.

But these limitations of SR are not seen as
limitations by the present day physicists. They
just accept these limitations as unnecessary
worries, and ignore them.

But to me, we need to understand. Understanding
our reality is the primary purpose for science,
for research, for almost everything we do.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Interestingly, you don't seem to ask questions about
*why* there are three dimensions of space in
classical physics, . . .

O'Barr comments:
Why are there three dimensions? Because we see
three when we look and use our eyes, we hear three
when we use our ears, we feel three when we use our
hands. Every one of our senses tells us that there
are three. There are hundreds of scientific studies
(like thermodynamics and chemistry and construction
industries and mining) that show that three
dimensions are valid assumptions. Surely you are
trying to be funny! Let us skip your fun and games.

<delete of the obvious>

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . What's interesting about that is that you
don't like this answer for the tenets of
relativity. Perhaps the difference to you is, "But
for those, I can't plainly see that, so I have the
right to refuse that answer. I'll only accept that
answer for things that I can plainly see."

O'Barr comments:
What is downright sick about all this is that
there is not even one test that shows that there is a
4-D spacetime continuum. Not one test! And yet you
demand this right to make 4-D just as real as 3-D,
where hundreds of studies fully and completely
justifies 3-D and not 4-D.

You are being unscientific. Only until you come
up with a test that shows that something could only
work if there were 4-D, and not just 3-D, should
anyone actually believe in 4-D. 4-D is physically
impossible. Maybe that is why you have no test to
prove that there is 4-D.

O'Barr wrote:

So what do we do? First of all, we must know that
the math of SR is not unique. The identical math
is also found in LET.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is simply incorrect. There is a *portion* of
the mathematical structure of SR that corresponds to
LET. However, that is a shallow and incomplete
grasp of SR. SR has many, many more mathematical
implications that LET simply does not touch.

O'Barr comments:
But why does LET 'not touch' all the things that
SR covers? Is it simply because no one wants to do
it? The math of LET is the same as the math of SR.
Anything that is done with SR math can be done with
LET math. The mere statement that you use above,
that these things have not been done, is an
indictment upon the modern physicist, not upon LET!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've mentioned some of these to you before: note the
explicitly covariant form of the strong, weak, and
gravitational interactions required by SR (but not
by LET). Now, I know that you've *also* said that
you have hopes that there is a theory of the strong,
the weak, and the gravitational interactions
possible (though not presently at hand) that
explains current phenomena but without the
mathematical constraints of SR. So summarizing, you
have a belief that LET *plus* yet-to-be-found
theories of the strong, the weak, and the
gravitational interactions have the same math as SR.
Pardon me, sir, this is a stretch.

O'Barr comments:
It is easy to see who is doing the stretching. A
few (all it takes is one?) have shown that even GR
can be presented in a simple 3-D way. All of your
statements above are just words, trying to support
your hope of something that is physically impossible.
Again and again, if in LET it is seen that all frames
end up with the same math form, and the velocity of
free space light ends up being measured as c, then
certain math symmetries will be expected. And so
there is nothing done in SR that cannot be done in
LET.
But who would want to do these things twice?
Surely you do not seem to understand that these two
theories are the same theory, and you cannot escape
by just saying that they are not the same. If you
really think that LET math will not allow you to say
the same things that SR math says, then show it,
don't just assume it.

O'Barr wrote:
In fact, LET not only provides to us the
same math that exists in SR, it also provides
to us reasons why all this math works. Thus, if
physicists would accept LET, then there would be
no reasons for this article.


It was good hearing from you, PD.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+....................Remove ... for e-mail!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... Miguel Rios wrote: ... about how these things in science are done. ... one of the greatest math theories that have ever ... to represent the correct physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • How scientific are SR experts?
    ... this specific math construct. ... the cause of the physics for this science. ... real objects, and what real objects can do, and only ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: The end of SR!
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... Math is very useful. ... look at some science that is well known! ... meaning and nature of this physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the two slits versus schrodingers cat
    ... >>2) Experimental physics has nothing to do with applied physics. ... > view from which we can define the goals of science), ... only *very* little) to do with adding dimensions ("very little" because ... that - just the math. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR and GR without math
    ... No other math needs to ... I just call this the methodological end of science. ... Chemists can do quite a bit with no knowledge of QM whatsoever (I don't ... > Antarctica) that are doing frontier physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)