Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.

On Jun 9, 4:44 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.

<deletes by O'Barr>

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Two comments:
1. The statement above (that the velocity of light
is MEASURED to be the same constant, c, in all
inertial reference frames) is not AT ALL the same as
saying that light will be said from one reference
frame to be going past all other reference frames at
c. Do you understand the difference between these
two statements.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely I understand the difference. And those
who are using the tools in their own frame are using
different tools than those who are in some other
frame. And if their tools are different, then sure,
they could each measure something different. The
problem is not understanding these differences, but
who is correct? Reality cannot really be different
just because someone is in one frame and someone else
is in another frame.

This is precisely the nut of the problem, of course. Relativity
reaches the point where it notices that THERE IS NO PHYSICAL WAY TO
TELL which is correct. Then physicists ask whether this is an
inherently bad thing. Physics is rife with places where there is an
arbitrary value to certain things: momentum, kinetic energy, velocity,
electric field, magnetic field. All of those quantities depend on the
completely arbitrary reference frame in which those things are
measured. There IS NO "correct" value. The wonderful thing is that the
laws of physics are completely unperturbed by this arbitrariness. And
THAT is the important thing, not the "correct" value of those
quantities. Focusing on what the "correct" value of momentum is, is
focusing on the wrong thing entirely, when the laws pertaining to
momentum are completely invariant.

Now some people are quite happy with velocity and momentum and kinetic
energy being dependent on frame of reference, but feel that length and
duration should somehow be different. The obvious question then is,
why?

If light is measured to be
going at c in one frame, but it is not going at c in
another frame, who is correct? What if 50 different
frames say it is not c, and only one frame says it is
c!

Well, in the case of c, we've been through this before. Using the
proper prescription, everyone agrees it is c. Using an incorrect
prescription, it may be surmised to not be c, but that is counter to
experiment.

But let's worry just about an ordinary case, and let me ask you what
the "correct" value of your velocity is, right there as you sit, and
how you could possibly determine that? Secondly, let me ask you what
possible importance does the "correct" value of your velocity have? Is
there any law of physics that requires that there is a unique value?

Who do you believe? Is anyone correct?

Does it matter?

They might have all done their measurements
correctly with their own tools, but the measurements
cannot all be correct in terms of reality. Only one
or none of them are correct, they cannot all be
correct in terms of actual reality. Surely you can
understand this, can you not?

The reality is that your "actual" velocity, as you sit there, is
different for two different observers. Is that a problem?


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2. What is MEASURED to be true in nature is
obviously physically possible.

O'Barr comments:
Not since the MMX experiment!

That is incorrect. You are taking the perspective that, since the MMX,
science has abandoned the reliability of measurements and has instead
relied on the logic of the mind to be able to determine reality. There
could be nothing further from the truth.

Once we observe
that our tools are changeable tools, the rulers can
change their lengths, and clocks can change their
rates, then you would have to be stupid to think that
what we measure can be directly trusted. No thinking
individual would dare say what you have just said.
And this is where SR experts are the most stupid.
They often say and think that their measurements are
what is. But we now know that this is not possible!
When you have changeable tools, then you cannot be
sure of getting correct answers. You would have to
be insane to think like these SR experts.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thus, by measuring it to be the case, we have
allowed nature to demonstrate what is impossible and
what is not.

O'Barr comments:
You are funny. No! With changeable tools, what
is measured is no longer what is real. Nature, as
determined by changeable tools, cannot really be our
reality.

And if there is no way to determine reality except through checking
with measurement, where does that leave you?

Any and every thinking individual now knows
this. Where have you been?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We do not get to decide that for nature.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely correct! Nature is nature, and does
what nature requires. But we are scientists, and we
have a brain, and we have the ability to figure out
what nature is doing. And we have figured it out.
And we now know exactly how nature is acting, in
order for us to measure what is measured.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What you may be confused about is how it is
*algrebraically* possible that this happens.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry. LET is algebraically perfect. There
are no math mistakes in LET!

I wasn't talking about LET. I'm talking about the "vector addition"
you refer to below.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You have it in your head that if some object (a
photon or not) is moving at some speed v relative
to some inertial reference frame, and that if
another reference frame is moving at speed u along
the same axis relative to the first frame, then the
speed of the object relative to the second
reference frame MUST be (v +/- u).

O'Barr comments:
Well, let me tell you what I believe. If all your
observations are in the same frame, using the same
tools, velocities all add up in a vector fashion. Do
you disagree with this?

Yes, I do. It is counter to experiment.
We have long believed that velocities simply add like vectors. We have
believed this because, for nearly everything we applied it to for
hundreds of years, it seemed to work.
However, it is WRONG. Velocities do not add like vectors.
The prescription to add them like vectors is an excellent
*approximation* as long as the vectors are small compared to the
maximal velocity, c. But it is an approximation only.

What is foolish is to insist that velocities MUST be vectors because
the mind feels comfortable treating them as vectors. This is precisely
the kind of thing where the mind is happy to lie and deceive, and
where without reference to measurement, you are no longer doing
science but religion.

And thus, if in any one
frame, you actually do see a difference between the
motions of two different objects, then in any other
frame, you will also see a difference in their
motions, if your tools and measruements are correct.
So let us measure, all in one frame, that each
frame has a different motion with respect to a
specific photon. Since both of these measurements
were made in the same frame, then there really were a
difference in the motions of these two frames, and
this difference is real, and must be real in all
other frames.
So now, if you have a situation where each of
these frames say that they are moving at c with
respect to the same photon, or with respect to any
other real object, then you know that they are wrong.
Their measurements are not correct according to
reality. And thus, any science that says that their
measurements are correct is also wrong, and silly,
and impossible. QED.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is the SOLE basis for saying that SR's claim
is impossible.

O'Barr comments:
My goodness. This is funny! Over the years, I
have listed over 10 reasons why SR is not a valid or
acceptable theory. How about all its breaks in
symmetry?

I don't know of any breaks of real physical symmetry. To what are you
referring.

How about all of its jumps in times?

Is that a problem?

How
about all of its inconsistent handling of the mass of
a photon?

I don't know of any inconsistent handling of the mass of the photon. I
know of definitions of two *different* quantities, both of which have
units of mass but very different physical meanings. Is that a problem?

SR cannot give a single reason why light
is a constant, or how a photon knows exactly how fast
to go at all points in space, or why the math forms
of all frames are the same.

Well as for this, it seems to me a rather stupid thing to question why
the laws of physics should be simple. You on the other hand, in order
to preserve the vector addition of velocities, want to say that as a
result the math forms of the laws of physics should be complicated,
and that the speed of light is different in all frames, and that IN
ADDITION there is an artifice, an effect on measurement, to give the
APPEARANCE that the speed of light is the same in all frames and that
the laws of physics are the same in all frames. Think about this: In
order to protect the vector nature of velocity, you are willing to say
that the laws of physics are IN REALITY complicated and frame-
dependent, but that there is an EXTRA effect on measurements that not
only completely masks that complex reality, but does it in EXACTLY the
way necessary to make the laws of physics appear simple.

SR is the weakest theory
that has ever existed. And you say I have only one
reason? This post is the funniest post I have ever
answered. Why are you trying to make any of these
funny points? You don't have anything else to do?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
However, your algebraic assumption is simply WRONG.
Nature does not in fact behave that way. The speed
of the object in the second reference frame is
instead (v +/- u)/(1 +/-v*u/c^2). You will note that
if the object is a photon and has speed c, then in
ANY other reference frame, the speed of that photon
is (c +/- u)/(1 +/- c*u/c*2) and two lines of
arithmetic will tell you this quantity is c, no
matter what u is. Since this result agrees with
experiment, we must conclude that (v +/- u)/(1 +/-
v*u/c^2) is correct and (v +/- u) is INCORRECT,
thereby removing the source of the issue that leads
you to think it impossible.

O'Barr comments:
Well, I just don't know how to answer you. I
guess if I ever need to take the measurements of one
frame, and combine them into another, then I will
give you a call.

That would perhaps be a good thing, because your vector prescription
is an approximation only. It will work well enough in some cases, but
not in others, and you seem incapable of determining where it will be
one and where it will be the other.


Let me delete all the rest of this post.
PD, in SR, in any frame, even the frame of this
earth in which we make our measurements, we are
capable of determining our complete realty. To
determine it by our measurements, and by our
intellect. And if do not use our intellect, then our
measurements will not be sufficient.
And in order to determine our reality, we do not
have to transform our measurements into any other
frame, or put it into the same form as what some
other frame would measure it. All of your thinking
up above is totally useless talk.

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. And this is the point that
physicists have learned.


But thanks for trying anyway.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It is not always c!
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... will use frame A and frame B as two valid SR ... measurements or calculations, ... To calculate closing or separation velocity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: It is not always c!
    ... velocity measurements can be made where there are ... will use frame A and frame B. ... the measurable relative velocity between two objects, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: It is not always c!
    ... velocity measurements can be made where there are two ... frame A and frame B as two valid SR frames. ... I assume what you REALLY mean is you are taking closing and separation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... your own frame, will be c. ... All we can do is take measurements ... SR says that clocks and rulers are NOT ... but LET is the correct physics that ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation reduces the Speed of moving Objects
    ...    The physicality of Zeno's conclusion is wrong. ... the velocity remains the same. ... I notice you keep definding classical physics. ... frame, this does NOT mean that, unless we have a mental image of what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)