Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:26:15 -0700
On Jun 10, 11:36 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
Ref:
<1181472860.199178.248...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1181354092.012640.50...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1181389260.154530.287...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1181425458.365805.172...@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 A:
Your post is too long. I will only respond to a couple of points.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
O'Barr comments:
There is common sense, however. If you take two
cars both going the same direction, one going 60 mph,
and one going 61 mph, and they hit each other, what
is the expected damage?
Exactly the SAME damage as the case when those same two cars, as
measured by another observer, undergo the same collision, one going
45,652 mph and the other one going 45,653 mph. There is NO physical
difference between the two views of the same event.
There are some events where
only the relative differences are expected to be the
only meaningful parameters. And no matter how
appropriate or complete our knowledge might be with
just the relative values, this in no way means that
there is not an absolute somewhere.
However, the point stands that there are NO physical laws anywhere
that require an absolute.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
O'Barr comments:
But if it is the absolute that is making the
relative to be the involved parameters,
But it isn't any absolute that is causing the relative, and you have
no reason, experimental or logical, to presume that there is.
then it would
be unscientific to ignore the causes of what is seen.
What you are saying is not based upon any science,
but only a decision that you seem to want to make.
It is simply based on what nature tells us, and there is no evidence
anywhere in nature of the absolute.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
O'Barr comments:
This 'everyone' is a lie. I have well shown that
the majority of observers in SR do not measure the
relative velocity of photons going passed all
reference frames with a velocity of c.
Sorry, those are NOT observers in SR that say such a thing, and I have
no idea where you got the idea that they would.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
O'Barr comments:
LET requires that there is one and only one unique
value for all inertial objects that exist.
Sorry, that doesn't answer the question. I asked if there is any law
of physics that requires that there is a unique value.
And for
one specific example where its absolute value is even
known, every free space photon is moving at a
specific absolute velocity. And so c, as one
specific example of an absolute velocity, does exist,
and it can be even seen and examined at any time, any
place.
As to our personal absolute velocity, we are
unable to measure it at the present time.
Nor at any time, I'll wager. If you have any -- any -- experimental
evidence or any procedure by which you can measure your personal
absolute velocity, then I'm open to your offering. If not, then you
are simply fabricating something for which there is no evidence.
PD
.
- References:
- O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: PD
- Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: PD
- Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Prev by Date: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Next by Date: Re: Wilsonian EM Control Frames.
- Previous by thread: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
