Re: Our greatest problem!

On 5 Apr, 10:19, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"beda pietanza" <beda-pieta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1175719172.257344.145820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



harry ha scritto:

"beda pietanza" <beda-pieta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175698757.213749.42810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

harry ha scritto:

"beda pietanza" <beda-pieta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175633150.482508.56790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Gerald L. O'Barr ha scritto:

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. 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.

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. 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.

So we could, if we wanted to, say the same things
about LET as we say about SR: We should accept LET
because it is the correct math. Because it provides
to us the correct predictions. Because it is the
proper math limit that exists in GR. All these
statements are the same with LET as it was or is with
SR. But with LET, we can continue: We can also say
that LET provides to us physical justifications for
the math being used. It provides to us exact and
proper limits to the math. It allows faster than
light events if they are ever found. It allows for
explanations that might be able to aid us in further
research.

So the problem we should all see, is how to get us
to switch from SR to LET. Since SR and LET have the
same math, then the experts (who now worship math) do
not care. But I care. And so let me present to you
what we must do to make a distinction between these
theories.

In SR, no absolute reference frame is allowed. In
LET, all things are based upon an absolute reference
frame. Thus, all we have to do is to find one
evidence for an absolute reference frame. We cannot
yet do this, but I believe it will happen.
But in reality, at least to me, everything we see
shows that there is an absolute reference frame.
Nothing can happen without an explanation, and since
LET is the only science that offers explanations,
then things have to be exactly as LET says it is,
until something offers a better explanation.
But present day physicists have lost their common
sense, and so I must continue.
LET is simpler than SR, simpler in that it works
in the simplest space, in simple 3-D, while SR is
tooted to be something that acts in 4-D. This alone
is justification for accepting LET.

In LET, the math develops because there are real
changes that occur in our reality. And if there are
real changes, there must also be real changes in the
clocks and rulers that are used. And so it is.
There are real changes in the lengths of rulers;
there are real changes in the rates of clocks. And
because there are changes that occur with our tools
that are used to make measurements (these clocks and
rulers), then many very funny things occur: some
changes that occur are due to changes in the real
things around us, and some are not. Some of the
changes being measured are due entirely due to the
changes in the tools being used to make the
measurements. And sometimes, no changes are seen,
not because there were no changes, but because the
real changes that occurred were exactly cancelled by
the changes in the tools being used to measure these
changes.
Now there is one more problem mixed in all these
variables: Besides these changes in the lengths, and
changes in the rates, there is a very nasty situation
where these clocks are also given some very special
syncing. And in some problems, the results are just
as much affected by changes in the synching of
different sets of clocks as much as by any other
changes. Changes in syncs can make lengths appear to
change, and the rates to appear to change, either
more or less. And all three variables must be
involved if one is to always get the correct answers.
This syncing is very tricky! In some cases, the
proper syncing can occur naturally. In what they
call 'slow motion sync,' for one example, a very
nearly perfect sync naturally occurs due to the way
slow moving clocks rates changes and the time over
which they change in taking up specific positions
that they need to take. But many times, the syncs
are just manually made to make c equal c.
Now again, in SR, they feel uneasy if anyone says
anything changes. They like to stay with proper
lengths, and proper rates, which never changes. They
get uneasy when people begin to talk about things
actually changing. Again, they do not let themselves
think of what actually might be happening, they only
care about the final answers, and not try to put more
into their thinking than what you have to do to just
get the final answer.

Well, I believe that this focus on the limitations
of physical or mechanical motions will be the key to
force some important reconsiderations. In LET, where
real changes occur, then these real changes can
affect the functioning of mechanical parts. If there
are relative motions going on between parts in
contact, then there will be changes in one that will
not be equal to changes in the other.

So again, what do we do? The problem is, we
really do not know what our absolute motion is, at
any one time. Therefore, we must do these tests in a
random way, at different times in our orbit, in
different directions or orientations, etc., and look
for non-random results.
Therefore, I propose that we take LET, and
determine what real changes could be occurring, and
what effects such real changes might have if those
real changes existed. For example, if these real
changes in rotating disks would be more unstable in
certain orientations than others, then let us take
disks to their point of destruction, and see if there
are differences in their failure mode at their
limits. If such could be found, then these
differences would be absolute proof that there are
absolute velocities that existed. We might find out
that different directions in space causes different
results, and if this is able to be noted, it would
make SR a dead issue.
Let me repeat what I am saying: If we took 100
identical rotating disks, they would of course look
all alike to us. But they might just be looking
alike to us because all the tools we use to see these
disks are also distorted in some equal way. But in
reality, these tools might really be different as we
hold them in different directions or test them at
different times. Thus, as we take these rotating
disks to higher and higher rpm's, there just might be
seen differences in how they undergo destruction as
they reach their maximum rotations. At least, that
is my hope, and sense of things, as things appear to
be to me.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

And some of the best tools might be sub-atomic particles.
Do any of these particles take up preferred orientations?

dear O' Barr,
I agree with you on a logical superiority of LET over SR, but
both theory relay on a not mentioned presumption:
Commoving clocks made of different material, or working
with different principles, maintain their time rates ratio as their
inertial system changes speed; this presumtion is groundless.

Hmmm... Ives showed that SRT (LET) can be derived from conservation of
energy and momentum - do you think that that is "groundless"? ;-)

I don't think that energy and momentum are "absolutely" conserved:
when a object is absolutely moving vs the local ether it acquires a
"potential energy"

Usually that's called kinetic energy; both classical and relativistic
mechanics conserve total energy.

The absolute speed of a object gives the object the potential attitude
to give back the energy, like a object rised to a higher level has
some potential energy vs the ground.
We can call it as we want.

and it is bond to give it back to the "universe" eventually, while it
is moving
at the new given absolute speed, the absolute internal content of
energy that it would have had (when it was at rest in the ether) is
reduced, as the speed goes higher up to C (where all the matter can
survive only as light) the internal energy of the object vanishes.

?? Maybe you mean radioactive processes, where internal energy is
converted
in kinetic energy?

No, I mean any internal energy contained in a system due to local
termal agitation
and local mechanical or rotational moviments

That's different from an electron in a particle
accelerator, which becomes more and more energetic with speed (as
confirmed
by coulometric measurements on impact).

Sure, but also absolute moving electrons, as clocks, show transverse
red shift relate to the lowering of their time rate

I relate energy and momentum as it would have a spinning ball: the
same
spinning ball brought to a higher absolute speed have less absolute
rotational energy.

Sorry but you completely lost me here... I never heard of loss of
rotation
energy with increased linear speed.

When a etherist say that a moving clock really slows down
he mean that the clock really absolutely lower the time rate and this
is = to loosing
rotational energy (if you use any rotating object as a clock)

That's erroneous due to oversimplification, see below.

The same phenomenon takes absolute longer time in a moving system:
which means
that if that phenomen would irradiate (trasversely) energy, it
irradiate less.

Anyways, my point is that different clocks, commoving in the same
inertial system,
if the system is brought to a new absolute speed, those commoving
clocks don't keep
constant the ratio between their time rates because the different
material nature of the clocks
come into play and determine the difference, and SR and LET don't
cover this eventuality.

I know that you meant that, and my comment addressed that point. Or, to
approach it in another way that is closer to Einstein (but with the same
conclusion): do you think that the electrons and protons of different
materials don't follow the same laws of electromagnetism?

electrons and protons of different materials are spatially positionned
differently
in different material and this is enough, amongst other things, to
make a difference

Fields are themselves, when generated from moving object, spatially
blue-shifted
(front) and red-shifted (back) in the absolute space (ether).

The form of the "laws of electromagnetism" depend on the clocks
settings.

You can figure all that out just using SR and by putting the ether as
a reference frame
(and adding the expectancy that different materials may act
differently).

Of this last point of which I'am much concerned, there are not yet
experimental
evidences, IFAIK, sure the differences are very small, yet below the
experimental
sensitivity.

Surely SR ignore them and prevents any development in the way to
discover those differences.

best regards

beda pietanza

I'm sorry, your reply sounds too confused to me to give detailed comments.
Laws of nature are not affected by clock settings, and there is no
indication that energy laws are broken. If you think so, it's obviously due
to oversight from your part (such as ignoring increase of relativistic mass
with speed). If you really want to make such a point (and see it crushed to
pieces), you could start a thread in which you provide your calculations.

Best regards,
Harald

Energy sure doesn't vanish so it is conserved, but you should come out
of
schemes and figure out how things look like using just one single
clock belonging
to a inertial observer, or two clock (of the same observer)
differently synchronized
ei versus a arbitrarly choosen (as a compatible) asbsolute reference
frame in all
these cases the "form"of the laws of physics are different.

I dare not challenge the subtilities of SR model, I search physical
explanations
and I take the risks of making personal attempts and hypothesis.

best regards

beda pietanza

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... no absolute reference frame is allowed. ... real changes, there must also be real changes in the ... there are real changes in the rates of clocks. ... I don't think that energy and momentum are "absolutely" conserved: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... no absolute reference frame is allowed. ... real changes, there must also be real changes in the ... there are real changes in the rates of clocks. ... I don't think that energy and momentum are "absolutely" conserved: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... First of all, how an energy does vanish when it does not exist, as it would ... all things are based upon an absolute reference ... real changes, there must also be real changes in the ... there are real changes in the rates of clocks. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed
    ... If traveling clocks don't work, and the universe agrees it has failed ... Time is an abstract created to keep "absolute" time. ... Relativity has some good math and some good thoughts ... And some of the math is sadly stating basic math is wrong ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed
    ... If traveling clocks don't work, and the universe agrees it has failed ... Time is an abstract created to keep "absolute" time. ... And some of the math is sadly stating basic math is wrong ... So the twin paradox wouldn't occur with clocks not made from Cs ...
    (sci.physics)