Re: What Does SR stand For?

Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote: . . . .


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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, "LET" is an incorrect and outdated theory.
There is no ether that physically, or non-
physically, exists.

O'Barr comments:
If LET is incorrect, and yet it makes the same
predictions as SR, then in the exact same way that SR
is valid, then so is LET. You cannot have it both
ways. You cannot say that SR is valid unless you
also say that LET is also valid in that same way that
you say that SR is valid.
RLG, I think you are getting into this a little
late. Be sure to know that I fully and completely
accept SR math. SR has the correct math. And there
is nothing wrong with presenting the math in a 4-D
format. The only problem comes when SR experts try
to confuse the math with the reality. And so please
keep that in mind. Since LET produces the identical
transforms (that is why SR has to call their
transforms the Lorentz transforms), then these two
theories are actually the same theory. And only the
interpretations differ. And guess what, LET
interpretations are physical interpretations, and SR
interpretations are only math.


O'Barr wrote:
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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, you are confusing what the theory says with the
issue of the theory's correctness.

O'Barr comments:
You mean that we do not need to know what the
theory says in order to know it is correct? I think
you do not know what you are saying.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The theory says that spacetime is a four-
dimensional manifold that physically exists and is
warped by matter and energy.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely this is what is said. But you see,
there is no test to establish any part of this as
being real. The math is correct, but the assumptions
have not been established. The math can be
completely true, and still not have one single thing
true in terms of the assumptions. This is what LET
shows to us. LET shows that the exact same math can
also have a simple 3-D explanation. And until you
can show by tests that it is 4-D, and not this LET 3-
D, then you have no science to support your ridicules
and physically impossible concepts.
Please understand! The LET approach is able to
show that all of these ***warpings*** and changes are
within the tools, not in the ***geometry of space.***
And when you allow all these changes to be within the
tools, then they all become simple changes, all based
upon one frame, and they become reasonable and doable
and logical and understandable. Surely you cannot
misunderstand all this! No physically impossible and
silly 4-D is involved at all! It pops right out at
you, in simple 3-D.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If the spacetime manifold of general relativity
does not physically exist, then the theory of
general relativity is wrong. Same note for special
relativity (which is general relativity with no
matter and energy to distort the metric). So all
of the experimental support for both special and
general relativity is experimental support for the
physical existence of spacetime.

O'Barr comments:
You are missing the entire point: The math of SR
is not a single ended function. Yes, the math can be
put into a 4-D form. That is true. But what you
have failed to understand is that this same math can
also be put into a more simpler 3-D form. If the
results you got could only be gotten from a 4-D form,
and you proved this math to be correct, then you
might have a reason to assume what you assume. But
since LET shows us how easy it is to get these same
math relationships in a simple 3-D form, then SR math
has no power at all to establish there being anything
that has a 4-D base since it is really a 3-D math.
QED!


O'Barr wrote:
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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, the tools do measure realtiy correctly. The
whole idea behind science is that the measurements
are correct. If one abandons this idea, there can
be no science at all.

O'Barr comments:
LET predicts the identical measurements. No one
is asking anyone to give up on any measurements that
are made. All of our measurements are valid
measurements. It is the interpretations that must be
changed. We must know that real changes are going
on. SR likes to say that there are no real changes
going on, that it is only a change in our
perspective. Such thoughts are foolish thoughts. We
have to now know that some of these changes are for
real. SR is making us dumber and dumber. And there
is no excuse for all this silliness.


O'Barr wrote:
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:
Relativity is not a physically impossible world.
To claim otherwise is nonsense.

O'Barr comments:
Don't make me laugh. 4-D is absolutely physically
impossible. It is silly and stupid to believe that
there is an actual 4-D reality. Absolutely no
science exists to establish such an impossible
concept.
And it is silly to go around and say that there
are never any changes, that it is only a change in
our perspective. What silly and impossible things to
say. Why you cannot even say what a perspective
physically is, or how it is physically caused, or how
it is established by any act. It is just a set of
words that you use, with no power to explain one
single thing. Go ahead and explain to us how this
physically works! I dare you to do it.
SR is stupid, and it has to end. LET presents to
us a simple 3-D way in which all this happens, and
every step is normal and reasonable and
understandable and doable and logical and physically
simple. How can you reject it?



* 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 wrote:
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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, the classical ideas of an absolute 3-sapce,
with Newton's absolute time, is incorrect and has
been abandoned by science.

O'Barr comments:
This is all correct. We now know (since MMX) that
an absolute space in which rulers maintain a constant
length is false, and an absolute space where clocks
never change their rates (since light = c) is false.
And so yes, we have all had to make some important
changes. But at no time is anyone being forced to
give up 3-D. This seems to be your downfall. You do
not seem to understand all the choices that are
available to us, with what we now know and
understand.


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:
Please read Einstein's original papers and his
quotes that I posted in my reply to Harry. They
clearly show that your statement is incorrect;
Einstein never claims his theory could fit into the
classical ideas of space and time.

O'Barr comments:
Do you mean like Einstein's train example, where
everything occurred in simple 3-D space and simple
time? All that occurs in this example is changes in
the lengths of rulers and changes in the rates of
clocks, but all these changes were being done in
simple 3-D space. So again, what is it you want me
to read?


<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The fact that the mathematical predictions of
special relativity are supported by experiemtns
strongly supports the physical existence of
Minkowski space. O'Barr, you are also incorrect in
your claim that the experimental data support the
classical ideas of space and time. They support
the opposite and so everyone has the right to claim
that there is good science behind the 4-D reality.
And so it would be foolish to think that spacetime
does not physically exist.

O'Barr comments:
You ought to be more scientific in your
statements. If by classical space and time you mean
a space and time where lengths are fixed and where
rates are fixed, then you are cheating. With the
MMX, and with LET, we now know that this classical
space and time is no longer valid. But this in no
way means that we have to give up simple 3-D. And
this is the argument, and you, for some reason, do
not want to go there where the actual argument lies.
You are no better than the other SR experts on this
net. You will not see the actual problem. And thus
you are not a scientist.
No one should be so silly as to believe in
something so silly and impossible as 4-D unless they
have direct evidence. And we now see that there is
absolutely no evidence. It all supports simple 3-D.
And you are going to be made to accept this fact, no
matter how you try to ignore the actual evidence.
The math used in SR is all simple 3-D math. This is
what LET establishes for us. And thus, SR math, no
matter what form you can put it in, can not now or
can it ever establish any support for 4-D. It is
mathematically impossible for SR math to do this, as
long as LET shows us a 3-D way of doing the same
thing. So start acting like a scientist, and start
to agreeing to the actual facts. It is going to
happen, and it is going to happen now.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The fact that the mathematical predictions of
special relativity are supported by experiemtns
strongly supports the physical existence of
Minkowski space. O'Barr, you are also incorrect in
your claim that the experimental data support the
classical ideas of space and time. They support
the opposite and so everyone has the right to claim
that there is good science behind the 4-D reality.
And so it would be foolish to think that spacetime
does not physically exist.

O'Barr comments:
Repeating these concepts are not going to save
you, RLG. Yes, the classical concepts of fixed
lengths and rates can no longer be accepted. But
that is not the argument. The problem is whether or
not reality is the simple 3-D space of LET or if the
4-D spacetime continuums of SR is correct. And what
the evidence is, if you use math that allows both to
exist.
Since you cannot even allow yourself to see what
the actual problem is, it becomes difficult to have a
scientific discussion with you. But I am willing to
continue. You need to read more of what I have
written, and learn that I support SR math even more
than you do! I have to support SR math, because it
is the same math as LET. And although I do not hold
up LET as really being a good theory, it is far
closer to being correct than SR. I am not unwilling
to hear criticisms on any theory, but over the years
I have learned that SR experts do not allow any real
criticisms to exist for SR.
Have you read any of my posts showing some of the
weaknesses to SR?

<lots of deletes by O'Barr>


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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... *continuum of relativity. ... assumption is a two-faced math. ... supports LET's reality as well. ... there is absolutely zero support ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... RLG wrote: ... I have no phobia at all over dimensions. ... But math is math, and no one should get confused over ... that shows that our reality is 4-D. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... There is no ether that physically, ... RLG, I think you are getting into this a little ... SR has the correct math. ... the interpretations differ. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... RLG wrote: ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... These are the facts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... assumption is a two-faced math. ... supports LET's reality as well. ... the facts, but this is what SR did. ... *rejected by physicists. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading