Re: What Does SR stand For?

Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

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No, "LET" is an incorrect and outdated theory.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

O'Barr wrote:
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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Well, thank you, RLG, for giving us some of the
feelings of Einstein, and Infeld, and others.
Science really is not easy. And it is clear to see
your own confusion. Yes, there really are things
that ether theories cannot yet answer. But why do
you mistake feelings as being science? Why do you
see the things not yet done, and miss all the things
that have been done? You are not being a very good
scientist in how you are saying all these things.
You mentioned the need of having a mechanical
explanation for the ether. Yes, it sure would be
nice to know how the ether physically works. But we
do know much about this ether. And SR knows even
less! We do know that
the speed of light, and the rates of clocks, and the
lengths of rulers are all controlled by the same
ether, the same reference frame, with the same
absolute velocity control. This simplifies all of
our thoughts, and our science. Did you miss all this
on purpose?


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


O'Barr wrote:
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:
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.

O'Barr comments:
You cannot scientifically say this as long as LET
remains viable. LET allows the math to be fully and
completely explained as a simple 3-D effect, and thus
you are left with nothing! This means you are left
with absolutely nothing. You are scientifically left
with zero evidence for anything like 4-D. I do not
expect you to make this mistake again.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Spacetime is not impossible.

O'Barr comments:
Yes it is impossible. It is completely
impossible. No one has ever seen it, experienced it,
felt it, tested it, established any effects of it.
It just cannot be.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are wrong in your claim that "LET" somehow
explains relativistic effects.

O'Barr comments:
Since I have read what you are going to say, let
me point out ahead of time that you are now going to
pull a very dirty trick. You are going to assume
that I said that LET explains everything, and you are
going to show that LET does not explain everything,
and so you are going to say that LET is wrong, and
that I am wrong. I am sorry, RLG, but what LET
really said was that if there were a frame in which
the absolute speed of light was c, and the rates of
clocks were as a light clock, and the lengths vary as
stated, then all that we see and measure would all be
done in a simple 3-D space. No one said that the
ether could explain the full mechanics, or the power
by which all these things are done. Shame on you.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> continues:
. . . 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.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, even today, we are still in the dark about
many things. But no test has yet been seen to
invalidate what LET assumes to be true. And you, if
you are to be scientific, should not assume or infer
otherwise. You are not being careful in what you say
and how you are saying it. Surely you are not this
dumb.


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 wrote:
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!


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
LET, using simple 3-D space, is able to explain
our reality. Now if you want to use some cheat
words, and use 'classical' to mean something
different than what LET assumes, yes, continue to be
smart (or dumb), and miss the truth that is being
presented to you.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.


O'Barr comments:
The same comments apply here as before. The
feelings or ideas, as given above, that others might
have, is not science. These thoughts and feelings
certainly might be important, but they are not things
that were specifically tested and shown to be correct
within a triple standard deviation, or to any other
order of testing.
Let us be just as specific as we can be: If there
were a test, where if the results were X, then we
would have 3-D, and if the results were Y, then we
would have 4-D, and then you did this test, and used
an analysis to determine that you got a Y, then you
could say we had a 4-D reality. And you could say
this in a scientific way. But such a test has never
existed, and such a test has never been conducted.
And you are not being scientific if you say anything
different than this. I am sorry, but this is the way
it is. And SR, as it is presented today by these so
called SR experts is now a dead science. There is no
such thing as a 4-D spacetime continuum, in terms of
true science.


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:
I am sorry for your false logic. LET is aware of
the fact that our tools are not perfect, yet because
they vary from perfection by a known amount, the
results are still just as perfect and useful. These
tools vary just the right amount to make SR math
correct, and so there is no change at all in our
measured reality. Why are you saying that we cannot
do what we are doing? To me, you are acting like a
child, saying things that you are either doing on
purpose to deceive, or worse.


O'Barr wrote:
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.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your ad-homenium attacks on relativity, and its
supporters, clearly shows that you are wrong.

O'Barr comments:
My comments are very justified. They are
scientifically stated. There is no justification for
4-D, and you know it. And it is physically
impossible. And no one can have change but no
change. No one can argue against the obvious.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Relativity is not a physically impossible world.
To claim otherwise is nonsense.


O'Barr wrote:
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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again, spacetime is not impossible.

O'Barr comments:
Well, if you want to be dumb, be dumb. Let us
then at least say there is so far no science to it.
This would be clear to any thinking scientist.


O'Barr wrote:
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?


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your personal attacks on relativity, and its
supporters, clearly shows that you are wrong.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, you can't blame me for anything. I did not
invent SR 4-D spacetime continuums. And I did not
invent LET. Your troubles have nothing to do with
me.

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
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:
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.

O'Barr comments:
All that was done was to produce a measurement
science, with the laws or rules as to what will be
measured. There was not (and still is not) one
single physical explanation given in the math of SR.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
You are lying to yourself. Geometry has always
been a part of physics, there was nothing new to
anything as far as the use of geometry is of concern.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Lorentz transformation, for example, reflects a
geometric truth of space-time.

O'Barr comments:
Then why did these transforms exist before
spacetime existed? Why are they called Lorentz
transforms and not spacetime transforms? You are
lying to yourself and saying things with no
scientific tests to support your conclusions. They
are simple thoughts that you have put to things, with
no real substance.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In relativity,
space-time is fundamental and so relativity's
equations are derived directly from the fundamentals
of the theory.

O'Barr comments:
As has been pointed out many times now, there is
only two fundamentals in SR: the use of the speed of
light as being a math constant, and the keeping of
the form of the math to be a constant in all frames.
These two math acts include nothing that is
physically fundamental at all. All that these two
math assumptions do is to adopt what was derived in
LET as assumptions. And since these are the same
facts as were derived in LET, then of course they end
up being the same theory.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
The Lorentz transforms were derived in LET, and
that explains SR.
Every thinking scientist knows that LET was not a
theory to include all the subjects you are using.
LET also does not tell us how to bake an apple pie.
Are you also going to reject LET because it does not
tell us how to bake an apple pie?


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Could any thoughts be more stupid? No one can
honestly say that SR is superior to LET if LET does
everything that SR does in a simpler way. And LET is
not vague, since it is a physical theory, then
everything is does is obvious and clear and exact.
It is SR that has nothing fixed and certain.
Opinions do not make physics, and we are now going to
end this act of making SR physics when the facts do
not support it. There is no 4-D, and there is not
one test that supports such a silly and physically
impossible concept.


O'Barr wrote:
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.

<deletes by O'Barr>

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . 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.

O'Barr comments:
And when you say it the way you just said it, it
is stupid and silly and physically impossible. The
actual speed of light cannot really be constant in
all frames, if there are relative velocities between
these frames. And actual measurements made by
independent frames of what the speed of light is in
these other frames show that what is said above is
not true, even in SR.
What SR really says is the speed of light in all
inertial frames is measured to be c when you use the
tools at rest in that frame. And this is exactly
what LET says. Both theories say and they measure
the exact same things. Your stupidity is going to
have to end.


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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... There is no ether that physically, ... SR has the correct math. ... transforms the Lorentz transforms), then these two ... 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: 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: OBarr: Our reality!
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr comments: ... In terms of the math, ... people to say there is no ether. ... LET doesn't explain WHY we observe physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... RLG wrote: ... assumption is a two-faced math. ... supports LET's reality as well. ... there is absolutely zero support ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)