Re: What Does SR stand For?


"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188664257.467800.307680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

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No, "LET" is an incorrect and outdated theory.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.

This is incorrect, the general idea of an aether (including "LET") never
succeeded in deriving special relativistic effects or electromagnetic
effects from a space filling medium:

"But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical
model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical
interpretation of Maxwell's laws of the electromagnetic field. The laws
(Maxwell's) were clear and simple, the mechanical interpretations clumsy and
contradictory." Albert Einstein: Sidelights on Relativity, page 7.

So the scientific world had very good reasons for dropping the aether
hypothesis. To keep that hypothesis, we would have to have equations
governing the aether from which Maxwell's equations and the equations of
special relativity could be derived:

"But what is the medium through which light spreads and what are its
mechanical properties? There is no hope of reducing the optical phenomena
to the mechanical ones before this question is answered. But the
difficulties in solving this problem are so great that we have to give it up
and thus give up the mechanical view as well."
Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld: The Evolution of Physics, page 122.

"... the all-penetrating ether had to be assumed as the carrier of the
waves, but no known phenomenon suggested the way in which the ether was
built up from material points. One could never get a clear picture of the
internal forces governing the ether, nor of the forces acting between the
ether and ponderable matter. The foundations of this theory remained,
therefore, eternally in the dark."
Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, page 304.


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.

As I have already pointed out, and a simple reading of the literature of
relativity shows, the experimental evidence for relativity is evidence for
the physical existence of spacetime. Spacetime is not impossible. You are
wrong in your claim that "LET" somehow explains relativistic effects. In
order to do this, "LET" would have to explain how the material points of the
aether interact with the material points of matter to generate "relativistic
effects". No one has ever been able to do this and so the below quote from
Einstein is as true today as it was when he first wrote it:

"... the all-penetrating ether had to be assumed as the carrier of the
waves, but no known phenomenon suggested the way in which the ether was
built up from material points. One could never get a clear picture of the
internal forces governing the ether, nor of the forces acting between the
ether and ponderable matter. The foundations of this theory remained,
therefore, eternally in the dark."
Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, page 304.


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!

No, the equations of relativity have never been put into a "simpler" 3-D
form, as you call it, so that relativistic effects can be reconciled with
the classical ideas of space and time. Einstein and Leopold express this
same point in a dialogue between two people (N and H) with H hoping this
objection can be overcome in the future:

"N: But I object to such an assumption. In the first place it introduces a
new hypothetical substance, and we already have too many substances in
physics. There is also another reason against it. You no doubt believe
that we must explain everything in terms of mechanics. But what about the
ether? Are you able to answer the simple question as to how the ether is
constructed from its elementary particles and how it reveals itself in other
phenomena? H: Your first objection is certainly justified. ... Your second
argument is also true. We cannot give a mechanical explanation of ether.
But there is no doubt that the future study of optical and perhaps other
phenomena will reveal its structure. ...I hope we shall be able to clear up
the problem of the mechanical structure of the ether." Albert Einstein and
Leopold Infeld: The Evolution of Physics, page 107.

Lorentz's models had this same problem:

"...In any event, Lorentz's model did not succeed in explaining the
properties of the aether." Delo E. Mook and Thomas Vargish: Inside
Relativity, page 51.

FitzGerald's model also had this same problem:

"FitzGerald had, in effect, given a formula that accounted for the
Michelson-Morley experiment, but it was little more than a fudge factor with
no explanation." Barry Parker: Einstein's Brainchild, page 45.


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.

Your ad-homenium attacks on relativity, and its supporters, clearly shows
that you are wrong.

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.

Again, spacetime is not impossible.


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?


Your personal attacks on relativity, and its supporters, clearly shows that
you are wrong.

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.

All the text books on relativity clearly state that the classical ideas of
space and time had to be abandoned in light of relativity's discovery.


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.


Again, relativity is not impossible and please stop the personal attacks of
calling me silly. As many have pointed out, nineteenth century science
thought that geometry and time were above (and independent of) material
interactions; i.e. all physical phenomena are mechanical in nature.
Nineteenth century science couldn't solve the problems they were running
into, for example results from the Michelson-Morley experiment. The
Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is independent of
the motion of the Earth. Einstein solved all of these problems by realizing
that, since no mechanical solution works, a change in the geometry of space
and time was necessary. What the scientific world failed to achieve with
mechanics, Einstein achieved with geometry. Geometry had to become part of
physics, not something loftily above it as in the case of classical physics.
The Lorentz transformation, for example, reflects a geometric truth of
space-time. In relativity, space-time is fundamental and so relativity's
equations are derived directly from the fundamentals of the theory. No so
in the aether hypothesis. In the aether hypothesis, the fundamentals of the
theory are a material medium and, as discussed above, there isn't even a
theoretical description (equations) describing this medium from which things
like Maxwell's equations and relativity's equations could be derived. So
the aether hypothesis is quite vague and therefore quite inferior to
relativity. Weyl sums this up perfectly:

"The only reasonable answer that was given to the question as to why a
translation in the aether cannot be distinguished from rest was that of
Einstein, namely, that there is no aether! The aether has, since the very
beginning, remained a vague hypothesis and one, moreover, that has acted
very poorly in the face of the facts."
Hermann Weyl: Space Time Matter, page 172.

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.

No it's not impossible, in fact it's true. Now, if what you're claiming is
true, then Maxwell's laws are necessarily wrong. If nature conspires to
give false measurements, and those false measurements obey Maxwell's laws,
then Maxwell's laws are wrong. Suppose that when scientists measure
electric or magnetic fields, a demon twists those fields to make it look
like Maxwell's laws are true. Then Maxwell's laws would be wrong even
though measurements agree with the Maxwell equations. You're confusing two
different things: (1) What the theories of relativity and Maxwell say and
(2) Whether or not those theories are true. So, firstly, what do they say?
Relativity theory says that light really moves isotropically at the constant
speed of 3.00x10^8 meters/second relative to all inertial frames and,
consequently, that must be measured to be true. (Einstein's words don't
limit it just to measurements.) We can measure the speed of light by
testing Maxwell's laws. But if Maxwell's laws are only true in a
measurement sense (i.e. wrong), then this leads us to the insane conclusion
that nature is a liar (except in the privileged frame, and the idea that
nature lies isn't respectable physics nor is it respectable metaphysics: it
turns the whole of experimental science into a joke). Secondly, are they
true? Setting aside such obviously silly things like an untruthful cosmos
and demons, the theories are true,

R


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... >the choice that "The rest frame of the ether is what ... The base to SR is a math base, ... Any physics equation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >>| 1/ Light is a wave travelling in the ether its speed is controlled by ... >>| the assumption at the heart of relativity is justified. ... > in physics. ... > distortion of A's measurements due to his motion relative to the ether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why
    ... He says that relativity is a>principle theory and the properties he gives to a principle theory are ... No one managed to develop his 'mobile ether' ideas and declaring relativity to be a 'principle theory' was the only alternative to accepting that he had not produced a different theory to Lorentz's. ... >>>> "We can distinguish various kinds of theories in physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory
    ... >> relativity of Newton in the first place was found not to exist. ... >Indeed the kind of ether that some proposed in defiance of Newton was again ... >idea that only mathematics matters for physics. ... Relativity is a theory which defies credible physical interpretation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >| apparatus relative to the ether had no affect on the measured value then ... >| the assumption at the heart of relativity is justified. ... >| matter' as described mathematically by Lorentz transforms. ... >| most theories in physics are what he describes as 'constructive ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading