Re: What Does SR stand For?

Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

O'Barr comments:
Below is a collection of a few of the statements
that had been made with my own comments added. I
hope I did not make too many mistakes on the names
attached to each thought.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* Everywhere else, in all the professional and
*popular literature, it is clearly understood that
*real space, and real time, is the spacetime
*continuum of relativity. Gravity is the warping of
*spacetime and if spacetime did not physically exist,
*then there could be nothing that is physically
*warped (in which case gravity would make no sense).

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Yes, this is certainly true, that spacetime is
taken to be something real by the SR experts. The
problem is this: the math that supports this
assumption is a two-faced math. That is, it is not
solo interpretable. Any real expert will know what I
mean.
The interpretation of SR math, and all of its
predictions, cannot be used to support 4-D as a
reality because SR math also fully and completely
supports LET's reality as well. And LET's reality is
a simple 3-D space and an independent time. This is
a very strange thing, that such a complicated theory
as SR is exactly the same as LET. But it is. And no
one can change this fact. We have to understand
this, and know that this is a problem that has to be
acknowledged and considered with all that we say and
do and assume.

Thus, it is unscientific to accept any SR test
result as confirmation for SR's 4-D approach. It
certainly confirms the math, but not the concept.
And no one who is being scientific can disagree with
this point. In terms of all tests that have so far
been accomplished, there is absolutely zero support
for any positive confirmation for 4-D as a reality.
Therefore, with no direct test results, it is not
science. It has never been science. And as far as I
am concerned, it never will be science.
The only thing that can be said about this 4-D
spacetime continuum is that it is a good math aid
that works.


harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
* Here you mix the different concepts of "physical
*space" (3D) and "physical spacetime" (4D). Of
*course, there is also the problem that different
*people mean different things with "physical"! After
*developing GRT, Einstein promoted the concept of
*physical space ("Space is a three-dimensional
*continuum") as well as space-time (note the dash):
*space-time was to him a convenient means for
*describing physical phenomena, and in that sense
*nothing new.

O'Barr comments:
There certainly is room here for us to
misunderstand one another. In fact, we can often
even fool ourselves. We often do not pay close
attention to what we are really meaning. Most times,
we just want an answer or a prediction to a test
result, and we do not care to trouble ourselves as to
what kind of a model we are using. It is only the
answer that we want.
But to be clear and exact is easy, if we divide
our thoughts up between math models of our reality
and physical models of our reality. To have a
physical model of our reality requires that some kind
of physical attribute is involved, with some accepted
form of space extension being stipulated or implied,
with some degree of causes and effects present, with
form and substance, or with some control or limit on
the form and substance. In SR, it is simply a math
theory, using c as a math constant, and forcing all
math equations to show the same form in all reference
frames.

<deletes by O'Barr>

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*Depends on what is meant by "metaphysics". The
*generally accepted understanding, by both scientists
*and non-scientists, is that scientific theories are
*theories about physical reality.

O'Barr comments:
At one time, this was the thought, however correct
or incorrect it might have been. This is at least
what they thought they were doing. And it was also
an implied act that any measurements made of our
reality was real, or correct, and could be accepted
at face value.
But today, we know that our measurement tools are
not fixed tools. And what we measure is not actual
reality. For this reason, we have to be careful in
our interpretation of the results of our
measurements. And if we are going to change frames,
we have to adjust our measured results in one frame
to match the measured results in some other frame.
And neither one might be the real reality that is
present.
Therefore, today, we can have theories as to what
will be measured (SR), or we could have theories as
to what reality itself is doing (LET, that does
include what we will measure due to what really might
be existing), or we can have just math assumptions,
or guesses, etc.

harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
* ... Einstein was more precise when he
*wrote "physical phenomena". Some modern theories
*make no pretentions about what "really" happens, but
*make predictions of observations that can be
*verified by experiments.

O'Barr comments:
What the MMX showed to us was that tools could no
longer be trusted, and thus measurements could no
longer be trusted. But SR took the very opposite
position that measurement tools were perfect, and
measurements using these tools provided to us what
was our real reality. This was exactly opposite to
the facts, but this is what SR did.
And because SR took the wrong position, the
position of saying that what is measured is our
reality, then the 'reality' that came from this false
assumption created a physically impossible world.
And the rise of Kooks then took place.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* Consider a very simple scientific theory: The
*theory says the moon goes around the Earth. Now, is
*this theory only a conceptual abstraction? It is a
*conceptual abstraction in the sense that the idea of
*the moon orbiting the Earth is a concept that people
*have in their heads. But the theory means, and
*says, that the actual moon is actually going around
*the actual Earth. The physical system that the
*theory refers to is not a conceptual abstraction.
*Is the theory true? The theory is tested by actual
*experiments and the results of the experiments say
*that the theory is true beyond a reasonable doubt.


harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the most succesful theories that says this is
that by Newton. It is in part based on the concept
of absolute space. So, do you think that absolute
space is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

O'Barr comments:
LET assumes that there is space. The space that
Newton considered and required is just as alive as
ever.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* We come to general relativity, and special
*relativity, in the exact same way. The theory says
*that a four-dimensional continuum exists and is
*warped by matter.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, again, this is what some say. But in fact,
there is no test yet found that can establish such a
fact. Until a test can be found which shows results
that could not be produced unless there was something
different than 3-D space and independent time, then
such concepts cannot be presented as science.


harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote
(To RGL):
I cited just the contrary! Again: according to
the author of GRT, space is a *three-dimensional*
continuum while *the "world" of physical phenomena*
is 4-D in the sense that it is composed of events
that are described by 3 space coordinates and 1
time coordinate.

O'Barr comments:
Thank you, Harry. Yes, in fact, SR was presented
by Einstein as being a simple 3-D space and 1-D time
coordinate system. It was exactly as simple as this,
frame by frame by frame. Mathematically, these 4
variables could be combined into one math
formulation, and this is fine, but the physical
theory was simple.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* So the theory, as an idea in people's heads, is a
*conceptual abstraction. But the physical system
*that theory refers to is not a conceptual
*abstraction.

harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
* Sure. That's O'Barr's frustation: he pushes for one
*interpretation of the theory that most people here
*don't like. You seem to be pushing for another
*interpretation that however was rejected by the
*originator of the theory and that is also commonly
*rejected by physicists. However, since SRT and GRT
*are principle theories, you are free to deduce your
*own metaphysics. :-)

O'Barr comments:
I would not be so kind. LET, as a physical
theory, has many more constraints than SR. LET,
having the same math as SR, certainly has to meet all
of the same math constraints as SR. And it does
this. But LET also must meet all of its physical
constraints, which comes from the physical
assumptions upon which the LET math is based. And it
does all this most perfectly. So LET is a stronger
theory than SR. Any real physicist will be able to
note such facts, and the acceptance of LET is thus
driven by these additional constraints that are
present and found to be in full support of this
approach.



RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* Like the simple case of the moon orbiting the
*Earth, the experimental evidence in favor of
*general, and special, relativity demonstrates beyond
*a reasonable doubt that the four-dimensional
*continuum that the theory refers to does physically
*exist. The cranks that dominate this newsgroup
*(always claiming relativity theory is wrong and so
*the physical spacetime the theory requires does not
*exist) cannot escape the overwhelming experimental
*evidence in favor of relativity. It seems you
*simply do not want to accept relativity

O'Barr comments:
The point to be considered is that SR math is not
unique to 4-D. The fact that the math provides
correct predictions therefore is not support for 4-D.
And therefore, there is no science upon which anyone
can present for 4-D. It just does not exist.

Let me repeat this again: Rather than having an
abundance of facts supporting 4-D, we actually find
that there are zero facts that can be presented that
would support such a concept. All the facts
presented fully and completely support a simple 3-D
space and a simple 1-D time. These are the facts.
What anyone might want to do with these facts are
certainly up to them, but no one has the right to
claim that there is any science to this concept of
there being a 4-D reality.
If you find that a 4-D math aids in obtaining
solutions, then we could have claimed a 4-D reality
back when we found matter to have mass, or that there
is a concept of temperature, and that lengths of
things made of matter would vary with temperature.
Under many conditions, problems in our reality would
require a 4-D like math to obtain the exact nature of
things. But yet, at the same time, we all know the
differences between math and reality. And so, even
though 4-D math might be required or useful, no one
was so foolish to think that our reality was actually
a 4-D. And the same should be just as true today.

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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The law-inferred constraint (was: Tell me the rule...)
    ... Reany wrote: ... There are many who take their math ... and assume that reality is the math contained ... As physicists, we must clearly and exactingly keep ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The law-inferred constraint (was: Tell me the rule...)
    ... > reany@asu.edu wrote: ... There are many who take their math ... and assume that reality is the math contained ... > As physicists, we must clearly and exactingly keep ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The outcome is assured.
    ... hard science is the math and facts predicting the outcome to te dime. ... The math and facts must suport it then it can be reality. ... Reality might be hard to comprhend without the math and the facts. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OBarr: The end of SR!
    ... >> 'math unification' an excuse for saying reality is ... Science is designed to provide to us a correct ... is not supported by any facts that I know. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: JSH: Increasingly the worlds math reference
    ... And I like Google. ... Easy math. ... research, or rants against me, the reality is that the evidence shows ... will let them, but physicists don't care! ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading