Re: What Does SR stand For?


"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1189475103.611239.26130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. .. .


So there is lots of experimental evidence that
spacetime exists, . . .

O'Barr comments:
Not when you consider what I said up above. And
you do not seem to want to include what I said above.

No, just look at the experimental evidence for space and spacetime being
warped. the scientific literature is full of it.

. . . including the obvious fact that
space and time exist . . . .

O'Barr comments:
So just the simple fact that space and time exists
is support for 4-D? And I guess in your mind, if
space and time and matter exists, then this is also
support for 5-D to exist? And if space and time and
matter and motion exists, then this is evidence that
6-D exists? You are not a thinking individual.

Please stop the insults. I have never claimed you were not a thinking
individual so you have no right to make such claims about me. The existence
of space and time, together with the experimental evidence for their
warpings, is solid evidence for the physical existence of spacetime. I have
said this several times in my other posts.

. . . and the experimental facts that
space and time stretch and contract in accordance
with the equations of relativity. . . .

O'Barr comments:
And so what is the science of these stretches and
what is the science of these contractions, in terms
of physical causes and physical responses? Since you
have no physical base to your theory, you have
nothing to explain or even imagine the physical acts
being considered. What fun! There is no science
to any 4-D concept, and certainly no evidence.

You keep saying this false thing. The existence of space and time, together
with the experimental evidence for their warpings, is solid evidence for the
physical existence of spacetime. I have said this several times in my other
posts.

. . . Consider the
below example which typically characterizes the way
science views the physical existence of spacetime
today:

"First he, Einstein, realized that space is a thing.
What this means is it was always thought that space
was just a place in which stuff existed, but space
had no real presence itself. But Einstein saw that
space was a tangible thing, like afabric into which
the universe was woven. Gravity could distort that
fabric, bending space itself." Philip Plait,
Bad Astronomy, page 147.

O'Barr comments:
Could this tangible, physical fabric that can be
woven and then distorted be called an ether?

If we like, yes. But then "ether" is simply another name for the
four-dimensional spacetime that you seem to hate so much. Do you like
four-dimensional "ether"?

... There is nothing impossible about the physical
existence of a four-dimensional space, just like the
physical existence of the three known spatial
dimensions is not impossible.

O'Barr comments:
Three dimensions are obvious in everything. 4-D
has never been seen or experienced or found to be
necessary at any time. You cannot say that 4-D is
possible in any kind of a scientific way. . . .

The existence of space and time, together with the experimental evidence for
their warpings, is solid evidence for the physical existence of spacetime.
I have said this several times in my other posts.

But we know that space exists and even in
classical physics, with its three-dimensional
Euclidean space, the existence of space was accepted
without knowing what it is per-se. Well, science
knows that space and time exist, it is a common
observation, and experiments show how space and time
are distorted by matter, and those experiments agree
with the equations of Special and General
Relativity. And your "LET theory" doesn't say what
ether is in any physical sense.

O'Barr comments:
And SR does tell us what space is? Does SR tells
us what space is, physically? Does SR tells us what
time is, physically? SR tells us nothing! SR is
only math with zero physical specifications in its
base.

No it does not tell us what is it per se as I already said in my post. So
why are you asking me a question that I have already answered? Yes, you are
correct in that relativity does not tell us what space and time are per-se.
But neither did classical physics tell us that and "Ether" theory certainly
doesn't say what space and time are per se. But they don't have to,
relativity just tells us the number of dimensions in spacetime and how
spacetime is shaped (see the field equations of relativity). This really
isn't a problem for science. Science knew that the Earth has a shape
(round) long before anyone knew what matter is per se (atoms). Science
understood the shape of the Earth and the Earth itself physically exist
without knowing what its material substance is per-se. Same with
relativity: General relativity says how spacetime is shaped but it doesn't
tell us what spacetime is in itself. No big deal there, nobody knows what
quantum fields are in and of themselves. This is true of many things.

Unlike space and time, which obviously do exist,
there is no evidence at all for any space filling
medium or ether.

O'Barr comments:
You just said above that ***Einstein saw that
space was a tangible thing, like a fabric into which
the universe was woven. Gravity could distort that
fabric, bending space itself*** If Einstein said
that space was a material thing, how is that
different than saying there is a physical ether?
Somehow, you seem unable to really know that SR and
LET are the same theory.

Well, if they are the same theory and, since you accept "LET", you should
also accept relativity! Then drop the word "LET" and use relativity
instead. Then you could agree with all of us "SR experts" as you say.

<delete of some comments that space itself is
expanding. How would anyone tell the difference if
it is space itself that is expanding, or just that
the stars are all moving apart within a fixed space?
And of course, none of this relates to there being 4-
D>

Yes it does. Check out any good book on cosmology.

occur in the simplest of 3-d space. So SR
assumptions that 4-D is required is disproven. And
there is nothing you can do about this.

False again for the reasons stated in previous posts.

"...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.

O'Barr comments:
LET makes no assumptions about explaining all the
properties of the ether. It merely says it exists,
that it controls the velocity of light, and controls
the lengths and rates of rulers and clocks. Anyone
has the right to say that this is a weakness of LET,
but it cannot interfere with the correctness of what
is said, and that the LET gives more information than
what SR provides.

No. If "LET" makes no assumptions about the properties of the claimed ether
then it cannot be claimed that the ether controls light speed, clocks, or
rods.

Well, if, or until, that happens, Relativity does
not have a competitor and that is why "LET" is not a
competitor to Relativity. As IEinstein pointed
out, see his previous quotes in my posts, nobody has
succeeded at furnishing a mechanical model with the
correct properties.

O'Barr comments:
But LET is correct as far as it goes, and it goes
much further than SR. It is all done in a simpler
way, being just a simple 3-D theory. And we must
reject this silly and physically impossible 4-D
concept, that includes back in time concepts, and
worm holes, and other physically impossible concepts.

Falsse again for the reasons I have already explained.

R


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!
    ... Some days I understand relativity perfectly, ... Our experience in elementary-particle physics ... If we had a structured spacetime that still allowed ... It is only defined for three dimensions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>The notion of relativity is greater than the notion of Einstein's ... Spacetime geometry is present only in the narrow Einsteinian ... you decided to change the physics to accomodate what ... >>The conservation laws follow trivially from the commutation relations ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: RAH and Light speed was Re: Awesum mind powerz!!!
    ... So "einsteinean physics" really is special relativity? ... And you had problems understanding what einsteinian physics was? ... How about newtonian relativity, do you ... spacetime, say) can we show where all the physical properties of the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >> What does that have to do with the fact than an event in relativity ... >I think that physics should be interested not in abstract ... >4D spacetime consisting of these abstract points. ... >> and electron with momenta q' and p', ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... physics ideas, ... rotation between yourself and the stars. ... I know that its common for people trying to state Mach's Principle so ... rather than "absolute relativity". ...
    (sci.physics)