Re: What is the science for SR and LET?

Subject: Re: What is the science for SR and LET?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is the science for SR and LET?
. . .

O'Barr wrote:
I have been, for the very first time, pleased with
some of the comments being made on the
sci.physics.reltivity net. Some SR supporters
have actually said that the 4-D spacetime continuum
is just a math aid. And I certainly agree with
this attitude. Let us now really get serious.

The scientific problem we have between SR and LET
is very simple: They both have the exact same
math and they thus both make the exact same
predictions.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, they don't. In a VERY NARROW domain they make
the same predictions, but SR makes wider predictions
that LET doesn't touch.

O'Barr comments:
You mean, that SR predicts that there is a 4-D
spacetime continuum? If this is what you have in
mind, then isn't that perfect for LET? Yes, SR does
predict things that simply are physically impossible,
and guess what, LET does not predict things that are
physically impossible. Isn't that nice!

O'Barr wrote:
So if there are any results at all that support
SR, these same results must, in all cases, also
fully and completely support LET.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But the premise is wrong, so the conclusion is
forfeit.

O'Barr comments:
But don't you see, PD, you only said these things
are true, you did not back up anything you said with
even one example. Why was that? If you said that
there is only a narrow way in which LET is exactly
the same, then this must mean that there are many
ways in which they are not the same, and you gave no
examples. Why is that?
Now personally, we all know that SR is an active
science, and many problems have been worked out in
terms of SR terminology. So yes, I am sure you can
give examples where certain subjects have not even
been considered in LET. But the science cannot be
based upon such facts. The only true science is
whether or not LET can apply itself to everything
that SR applies itself. And on this basis, it is
clear, that anything done with SR math can certainly
be done with LET math.


O'Barr wrote:
Now true science requires there to be tests. And
the results of the tests are to be used to make all
decisions. But just to make tests is only part of
the science. We must also understand these tests,
and understand the limits of every test made. In
fact, the real hard work of science is this
determination of which tests to do.
Tests therefore have more than one reason for
being accomplished, or more than one thing to
decide. True, many tests are to determine the
correctness of the predictions. But some tests
are done not just to obtain the correctness of the
predictions, but to actually make a decision
between competing theories.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Based on how well they match predictions, yes.
Any test which does not offer a quantifiable
discrimination between competing theories is not a
worthwhile test.

O'Barr comments:
And since all present testings are unable to
separate SR from LET, then all testings to date are
not worthwhile tests. Thanks for being able to see
all this!


O'Barr wrote:
And there are few tests that are perfect in doing
such things. This is where the real science must
occur. And if one cannot clearly state how each
test **** is or is not ****
making a differentiation between competing
theories, if there are such, and how it is making
the most valuable measurement of the predication
capability of the competing theories, then they
are not being scientific.

We have to have and know much more than just the
results. We have to understand many different
things. We have to understand all the problems
that might come with the test.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, that is folded into estimates of background
and remaining experimental uncertainty, both of
which are quantifiable.

O'Barr comments:
Some things are quantifiable, but many things are
not. Intelligence is something much more than just a
simple calcalating machine. You cannot just rely upon
an addition here and there.


O'Barr wrote:
If there are competing
explanations, then we have to have both tests that
confirm the correctness of the predictions of each
set of explanations, but we also have to have tests
that can give clear separations between these
different explanations.
When it comes to SR and LET, we do not remain
scientific about our science. We do not keep
clearly before us these facts that there are
problems here that cannot yet be solved. We are
not being careful enough to point out these simple
facts that we do not
yet have any known way to separate these two
explanations. And this makes us unscientific.

So now, let us all come together, and agree with
each other, that there is no science, no test, no
results of tests, that can clearly put SR or LET
ahead of the other.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the domain where they make common predictions,
you are absolutely right.

O'Barr comments:
Well, thanks! Then it should be simple to mark
out this domain. At what points do the Lorentz
transforms not work in SR? That is where LET
might no longer work. But then, so would SR not
work!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But since there is a domain where SR offers
successful predictions but LET has nothing to offer
in the way of a prediction one way or the other, SR
is judged the superior theory. It makes good
predictions where LET does not.

O'Barr comments:
I hear what you are saying, but why is it that you
give no example? How is it possible for two theories
to have the exact same math, but one is allowed to
make an assumption, and the other is not? Can you
give at least one example where some relationship was
assumed to be correct in SR, but LET would not be
allowed to make the same assumptions? I think this
should begin to be interesting.


O'Barr wrote:
In terms of making things
correct, we have to agree that there are real
changes going on, these clocks really do
experience real changes in their rates.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know what you think is a "real change".

O'Barr comments:
Now PD, do not start to go crazy on me. What do
you mean that you do not know what I mean when I talk
about having real changes? If you start acting
crazy, of course we will no longer be able to talk to
each other. Do you really want to go to such a level
that we are not even going to know what real is?
Clocks are real. They each run at some real rate,
whether this real rate can be measured or not, it has
to have a real rate. And this real rate can either
change or not, depending on the nature of the things
that control this rate. If gravity is controlling
this rate, then if you change the gravity, the rate
will change.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You mean there is a physical process going on
that is affecting how the clock works? No, that's
not obvious at all.

O'Barr comments:
In the world of physics (not in the world of
math), one has to have causes and effects for
everything. If a clock has a fixed rate, then there
must be a reason why it is fixed. We might not know
why, but we do know that there is a reason why it is
fixed. Please do not go crazy on us. There is no
reason to make yourself go crazy.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If that were true, then two different
inertial observers looking at the *same* clock
would have to discern the same effect observed in
the clock. But that's not what happens.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry. In the proper SR approach, one can
only use local observers. Therefore, if you have a
specific clock, and you want to determine what is
going on for that one clock, you can do it, and all
observers in all frames will exactly agree on what
happens locally at that clock.
Let us put an orange tree at the location of this
clock. And let us measure the number of seconds that
this clock measures for an orange on this tree to
grow on this tree. Every SR reference frame will be
able to tell exactly what time that tree began to
grow, as indicated on this clock, and they will all
agree exactly what this clock says when the orange is
grown. There are no exceptions. There will never be
any disagreements between local observers as to the
facts.
Now what these different frames will disagree
upon, is what will their own tools say will be the
actual time. Since they will each be using their own
tools, then their own tools might disagree on the
facts, but the local observers will all be able to
say what actually happens. What do we learn by this:
Reality itself is absolute, and everyone has to agree
on what occurs in any absolute sense. But the
measurements of these events are all different. So
it is the measurements that cannot be trusted. The
events are absolute for all.


O'Barr wrote:
And if clocks really do
experience real changes in their rates, the rulers
must also experience real changes in their
lengths.

And as we get into some of these thoughts, we will
find that LET is not too far from being the more
complete approach.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is it theory A or theory B?
    ... | predictions, but SR makes wider predictions that LET doesn't touch. ... |> Now true science requires there to be tests. ... we have to agree that there are real changes ... | inertial observers looking at the *same* clock would have to discern ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the science for SR and LET?
    ... predictions, but SR makes wider predictions that LET doesn't touch. ... Now true science requires there to be tests. ... we have to agree that there are real changes ... inertial observers looking at the *same* clock would have to discern ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... So you disagree with the standard definition of time used in physics. ... prediction with your ideas, otherwise it is waffling and not science, which ... measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock." ... elaborations were irrelevant to the quantitative predictions of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... doing something if something is to qualify as science. ... hypotheses and predictions to do that. ... Which is more than DNA-ID has. ... testable before you can be an official research project because those ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... predictions about something untestable, ... I can scatter something else ... science has _lots_ of assumptions. ... But, if the theory is sound, it will receive formal publication eventually. ...
    (sci.physics)