Re: Only some energy has mass?

globarr_at_yahoo.com
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: 18 Dec 2004 11:37:19 -0800

In <raidnbpgw8Kdtl7cRVn-qA@comcast.com>
Pmb <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>In <1103305852.634561.320210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
>>>No. The role of the physicist is to TEST the limits.
>>>The limits are known, and are clearly defined in the postulates,
>>>or in the mathematics applied to arrive at a solution. For
>>>example, SR is limited to "flat space". A theoretician is
>>>to make new hypotheses, new limits, new tests.
>
>> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
>> ----- (remove 3 dots for e-mail)
>> What is the limit for PV = nRT?
>> The limit for PV = nRT is not a math limit!
>> Its limit is not and cannot be determind by math!
>> Its limit is a physical limit, dealing with
>> the physical size of atoms or molecules, etc.
>> Why do I get the feeling that you are only
>> a mathematician?
>> Please note, I am not disagreeing with everything
>> you say above. Just seeking clarification.

Pmb <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>What SR is limited to depends on what one means by
>"SR". Some (e.g. Pauli/Schutz, etc) speak of SR to
>mean "relativistic physics in an inertial frame"

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
----- (remove 3 dots for e-mail)
SR is a simple math theory. That is, it does not
tell us what physically occurs, and then develop the
math that is being controlled by these physical acts.
SR starts and ends with math. It says that the
measurement of light is a math constant, c, and it
says that the form of the math relationships will be
the same in all frames. And from these math
statements or restrictions, it presents to us SR. It
at no time explains why or how light is a constant,
so that its measurement can be a constant. It at no
time explains how the math forms for all these
equations can remain of the same form.
Now obviously, it does not have to explain any of
these things. But because it does not provide to us
any physical explanations for any of these things,
then it remains only as a math theory!
Because SR is only math, then its interpretation
can be anything, anything that does not change the
math. Thus, if SR can be express in simple one
dimensional form, and it can, then the physics could
be one-dimensional. If it can be expressed in three
dimensional form, and it can, then it can be
expressed in 3-D form. If the math can be expressed
in 4-D form, and it can, then it can be expressed as
a 4-D form. And so it goes. There are very few
limits on math interpretations. The present-day
expression or interpretation that is used is 4-D.
So I answer you, that SR is a math theory that
uses 4-D math to express relationships within our
reality. These relationships have become a religion
so ingrained into the normal scientist that back in
time, breaks in symmetry, jumps in time, and worm
holes become real, and a part of our reality, even
though such things are as unscientific as things can
be, unscientific on every level that can be applied.
When you have a physical theory, such as LET, then
there are additional limits (not just math limits.)
These physical limits bring about very fixed, limited
interpretations. In LET, there are no jumps in real
time, no breaks in real symmetry, no back in real
time, no worm holes, no 4-D, no mysteries at all. In
LET, it is all the simplest of 3-D space, and simple
1-D time, and simple vector addition of velocity, and
simple Newtonian like physics. And LET does all this
by using the exact same math as is used by SR.
But in LET, we are not limited to just math
limits, we have physical limits that are in control
of the math interpretations, and thus achieve a much
more specific theory! We get the exact same perfect
answers, the exact same predictions, but do so with
none of the fun and games that appear in SR.

Now I am not sure if I answered your question, but
I will be happy to try again, if you see something
that was missed!

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
----- (remove 3 dots for e-mail)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The physical paradox of the twins.
    ... > Benno Muilwyk wrote: ... > math, ... However, physical interpretations do exist. ... > differences between math and physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • 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: Physics versus Mathematics
    ...  Bend your math anyway you like. ... Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force. ... can't quite do the same for gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... accordance with the equations of relativity. ... But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)