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

Subject: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
Ref:
<1181472860.199178.248000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1181354092.012640.50260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1181389260.154530.287290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1181425458.365805.172760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

O'Barr comments:
What a perfect post you wrote. Thank you!
It was way too long. So I am breaking your post into
part A and part B.

Part B:

Let me begin by restating some of my thoughts:
1) SR is the correct math for our reality!
2) LET is the correct physics for our reality.
3) With the acknowledgement of 1) and 2), then we
must accept these two theories as being the same
theory. And everything good about SR math is due to
LET. Everything that is correct about SR math is due
to LET. And if you ever find me making any remarks
that could be considered to be against SR math,
please correct me. Since SR math comes from LET,
then there cannot be anything wrong with SR math
unless there is also something wrong with LET. And
there cannot be anything good about SR math, unless
there is the same good in LET.

These above comments should be read both before
and after I make any response to your post.



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

O'Barr wrote:
Not since the MMX experiment!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
It depends on the theory you are using. In LET,
it says that there is an absolute frame in which all
clocks and rulers are perfect, and thus their
measurements are perfect. And thus, these
measurements can be fully and completely trusted.
But in all frames that have motions in the ether,
their rulers and clocks are not perfect, and thus we
end up with this SR type of reality.
SR assumes that all SR measurements are direct
reflections of reality. But LET, of course, knows
that these SR measurements are not telling us the
full and complete story about our reality.

O'Barr wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And if there is no way to determine reality except
through checking with measurement, where does that
leave you?

O'Barr comments:
Do not play games. In LET measurements are an
absolute necessity. But they are not king. The king
is man, and his intellect. We know what is going on,
and we know how to properly interpret what is
measured. If man is not able to properly interpret
his measurements, then these measurements are
useless. No measurement can have any meaning exact
as man learns to properly consider them.

O'Barr wrote:
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.

O'Barr added comments:
In no way do I wish to infer that we are able to
figure out everything. But nothing should prevent us
from understanding at least the basic nature of our
reality so that we can be at ease with what is seen.


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!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
O.K. Just so we understand each other a little
better, let us take Einstein's train example. This
train, in the frame of the track, is going at a
velocity of v. Light in the frame of the train,
going in the same direction as the train, is going
past the train at a velocity of c-v, according to
those in the frame of the track. Are you saying that
this velocity of light relative to the train, as
measured in the frame of the track, is not exactly c-
v? If it is not exactly c-v, please tell me the
exact velocity. Thanks!


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
In LET, in the rest frame of the ether, where
every ruler is exactly correct in length, and every
clock runs at the exact correct rate, and a true
absolute sync is able to be obtained, all absolute
velocities in this frame add up perfectly in simple
vector form. And with such a perfect way, there are
never, in this frame, which is the physical frame for
all objects, even moving objects, there are never any
breaks in symmetry, or jumps in times, or any of the
things that are found in SR measurements (because the
physical frame is never exchanged for any other
physical frame.) And there is no religion needed to
understand and to appreciate all of this.

<deletes by O'Barr>

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
What a mouth full. I am glad that you let it all
come out.
Let me say it just a little bit more correctly:
(I am only going to present the simple kinematics)

In terms of the physics, you have an ether. This
ether forms for us an absolute reference frame. In
this frame, all photons move at c. In this frame,
the rates of clocks and the lengths of rulers (in
their direction of motions) follow these SR
relationships, where v is the absolute velocity in
the ether's rest frame:

1) tv = to (1-(v/c)^2)^.5
2) Lv = Lo (1-(v/c)^2)^.5

This is the full physical set of laws that are
used in the ether. No one should call any of this
complicated or a problem in any way. All these
relationships are actually very normal for what we
now know.
What might become complicated are the measurements
made when we observe that the tools (the clocks and
rulers) also follow these same laws. And thus, all
measurements become affected by not only the real
changes going on with the objects being measured, but
also by the changes in the tools doing the
measurements. All these things are complicated when
you do a full analysis of what is going on. But
after it is all over with, you find that the final
results end up being the simple relationships seen in
SR. So in the end, it really does end up being very
simple, but to explain it, it really gets messy. So
the complications are not in the physics. The
physics is simpler than it is in SR. But the
explanations can become a nightmare. But it is a
nightmare only to our minds, it is never a problem
physically. Please do not make more out of this that
you should.
What you said above is not fair, it is not very
correct, and you ought to reconsider how you should
say it. If you take the simple physics, as pressented
above, you will get SR math. No one could ask for
more simplicity than this.


Thanks for reading.
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: A cry for help!
    ... measurements are done with the exact same SR ... velocity of c, then why would light be going past him ... know if that is due to the education system or to the fact that most ... understanding of mathematics AND physics AND philosophy. ...
    (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)