Re: Errors being made by SR experts.


"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186079144.682781.285600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Errors being made by SR experts.
. . .

<many deletes made here that are not identified by O'Barr>

What does that mean? All I see is that you deleted this part of my response
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean you'd rather that nobody else jump into the conversation? If
so then this will be my last contribution in this thread unless I'm
personally addressed.

SR experts say many things that are not correct.

I'm curious about this. What criteria should a person satisfy in order to be
considered an "SR expert"? Am _I_ and "SR expert"? If so then I never
considered myself to be one even though two papers that I'm proud to have
written on SR/GR were well accepted by experts I asked to read them.

In any case what makes you think that you're not wrong and are just unable
to comprehend it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

O'Barr wrote:
SR experts say many things that are not correct.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... what makes you think that you're not wrong and are
just unable to comprehend it?

O'Barr comments:
Such things as this have certainly occurred, even for
me. But I have noticed several things. The making of
errors are greatly reduced when there begins to be several
different and independent correlations established with a
particular or specific point of view.

That is no the fault of SR but of people. I take it that's why you called
this thread "Errors being made by SR experts". However in your original post
you seem to argue that it is the implications of SR that you have a problem
with.

If what you are
proposing is just an isolated fact, then the odds are
increased that you just might be wrong. But if what you
are proposing is something that becomes supported by
several independent concepts, then your odds of being
correct is improved.

There are many applications of the postulates of SR and many application
have been tested by many people/labs and many many experiments.

LET...

Please define this term

... is supported in a multitude of
ways (even in more ways than SR), being both with the
correct math and with a supporting physical base.
Thus, LET, has every support as SR has in terms of
measurements. But LET also has much more. It is able to
bring to the table explanations that SR cannot provide.
And your rejections of these explanations are not
justified. In fact, it is unscientific not to understand
these additional explanations that are provided by LET,
and are missing in SR.

O'Barr wrote: . . .
SR experts say that the speed of light in all
reference frames is c.


O'Barr comments:
The problem here is simple: What is done with this
statement is simple. The only use made of this statement
by Einstein was to use it to say that a measurement of the
relative speed of light, when make with tools at rest in
your own frame, will be c.
He really never used this
statement as being anything more than this.

He also used that postulate to derive the Lorentz transformation which
leaves Maxwell's equations invariant.

In LET, the
difference between the way things might really be, and the
way things are only measured to be, is carefully and fully
developed. SR experts do not seem to allow such concepts
to ever be stated or enjoyed.

Sorry. That comment makes no/little sense to me. Where does the concepts of
" the way things might really be" come from?

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a postulate. This means we accept it to be true
unless proven false by experimentation. As of today (102
years later) we still find no contradiction in
experiments and experiments running all day every day all
over the world rely on relativity being correct which
means the postulates must be correct. Otherwise we'd have
seen problems in the experiments.

O'Barr comments:
Everything you say here is correct. But it is what you
are not saying that is your weakness.

Well I can't exercise anymore so ..... :)

What you are saying
above is only that the 'measurement' of the velocity of
light is always c. And the measurement is restricted to
a very narrow measurement: only in one's own frame and
only for light going past your own frame.

That is the meaning of the postulate though, so I therefore see no problem.

You are never, in the above sentence,
ever referring to the reasons why the measurement is
always c.

Of course not. If that could be done then it wouldn't be a posulate, it
would be a theorem. However if one takes the proper mass of the photon to be
zero then we can prove that postulate. We take Maxwell's equation and
demand, by the first postulate, that it holds in all inertial frames of
reference. We then derive the wave equation in any one of these coordinate
systems. To see the derivation please see

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/em/maxwells_equations.htm

Since the first law implies that the constants of nature are the same in all
frames of reference then the speed of the light wave that is described by
the wave equation gives a value of c for the wave speed. This same wave will
be calculated to be c as calculated from any given frame.

Until you are able to address the reason why
these measurements are c, you will never have a complete
science, you will never be a complete physicist, you will
never be able to communicate with anyone who accepts LET.

All sciences start with postulates. Those are things which are assumed to be
true until observation proves them false. If they are never shown to be
false then the theory gains acceptance.

O'Barr comments:
I know exactly what you are saying and what you are
thinking. And in the way you are saying it, and thinking
it, you certainly are correct. Every observer in their
own frame will measure light going past them to be c.
But why are you not able to understand me? There is
nothing in SR that forces anyone to only measure the speed
of light as it is going by his own tools at rest in his
own frame.

I understand that. And its conceivable that an EM wave could be measured
going at a different speed then c. If that happens then that postulate
(invariance of c) will have been proved wrong. To date no observation has
measured the speed of light to move at any other speed than c. Therefore the
invariance of the speed of light lives another day.

Any SR observer has the right to measure the
speed of light going by any object, not just his own
frame.

I don't understand this comment. Please clarify.

We have the right to measure the speed of light
going past a moving train. By a moving boat. By a moving
plane. By a moving star. We have the right and the power
to correctly measure the speed of light going past
anything. And this certainly includes the speed of light
going past any other reference frame.

It is quite true the the relative speed of light between two moving objects
may be different than c. However that does not contradict the invariance of
the speed of light postuluate.

And when we correctly use this power, and this right,
to measurer the actual speed of light that is going by
other reference frames, we do not get c. What right do
you have to ignore all this?

Well Gerald. If you have a use or it then please don't let me interupt your
usage of it. I myself would have no use for such relative velocities. At
least I have had no use of it today and this does not mean that SR "experts"
have made errors.

You have no right to ignore all this.

I have the right to ignore what I'm not interested in. Its called free-will.
As a scientist I don't ignore it in the general sense an hope to have
clarified myself here. However when you said that it doesn't matter what you
observer I terminated my part of the conversation because, at least to me,
it was going outside the realm of science.

These SR measurements do not show c.

Nobody ever claimed that they should. The invariance of the speed of light
doess not refer to reative motion to other moving objects but moving
relative to the observer's frame of reference.

And again and again, you have no right to ignore these facts.

Never have. I agree that the properties of spacetime and therefore the
measurements you mention have the results they do because of time dilation
and length contraction. So long as you understand that those results are
derived from the invariance of c.

O'Barr comments:
But don't you see that you are ignoring the majority
measurements that come from all the independent observers
who show that it is not c.

Please give a refererence to an experiment that contradicts the invariance
of c as it's meaning is defined in SR.

O'Barr comments:
Since SR verifies that there are changes in rates of
clocks and in lengths of rulers, then any thinking person
has to now know that there can now be differences between
what might be measured, and what real reality might actual
be. This is all anyone needs to know and to understand to
appreciate what LET is able to do for us.

The results of measurements are always done in the exact same way as they
were done in pre-relativity. E.g. for length contraction we determine the
location of both ends of a moving rod and we make these measurements at the
same time. That is the definition of length of a rod. This length is shorter
than it was when the rod is at rest. The reason for the shortening of the
rod comes from the invariance of the speed of light and what is derived from
them. Its not an illusion - Its exactly what is measured.

I'm snipping some of the following because my responses are all similar to
that above (plus I'm very tired and have to walk down and get a sub)

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald - I made a comment about you not following the
scientific method and that was bad joo joo. This was not
intended to be an insult towards your person. It was
intended to be a criticism to what you wrote. If you
interpreted my comments as an insult towards your person
then I humbly appologize and wish to ask for your
forgiveness.

O'Barr comments:
No offense taken. I believe your kindness here was due
to something Harry said.

I always try to be kind. However when people read something which disagrees
with them then its possible that they might read unkindness into what was
written. In my case it is not really there. Okay?

Thanks for reading.

Your welcome

Pete


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... relative to a set of coordinates where observers at rest in the frame ... If an observer is moving relative to the coordinate ... coordinate system to make his measurements. ... The closing speeds of c+v and c-v were calculated, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
    ... moving in frame K’. ... length of the rod, setting up measurements at their will, ... manner, each in his frame. ... it doesn't matter whether the measurements ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
    ... > moving beam splitters. ... > time ordering of spin measurements made over a spacelike interval. ... > of a preferred frame in order to salvage bohm's theory which requires ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
    ... length of the rod, setting up measurements at their will, ... manner, each in his frame. ... the very basics of special relativity theory, ... heard one about a bug being squashed or not by a shortened moving thing uh I forget. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: speed, size, time
    ... >>For the non moving frame, ... > in length between the measurements. ... We know how many electrons in a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast