Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

globarr_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: 14 Feb 2005 21:07:09 -0800

Subject: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics,
sci.astro, sci.philosophy.tech

Message-ID:
<1108420518.403592.167700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References:
<ZtUOd.3720$aW6.1977@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>
 <1108187867.417417.102500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

shevek4 <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
>> Jack Sarfatti <sarfa...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> . . .

shevek wrote:
>Thanks for your post.
>A few questions for you.
>
>1) What is "absolute" about a local LET rest frame?
>Velocities measured relative to that frame are just
>that - still relative.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
. remove 3 dots for e-mail
   Your use of the words 'local' and 'rest' might be
confusing. In any general inertial measurement
frame, especially as used in SR, the ether, being
real and physical, will have, in general, a local
velocity. Thus, it would not be at rest. Therefore,
it would not be possible to say, as you did above, 'a
local LET rest frame,' unless you were specifically
in the frame in which the ether would have no net
velocity. That is, you would have to be in the
absolute rest frame in order to have the local LET
frame to be an ether rest frame.
   Were you asking this question for a reason?
   Obviously, in any measurement frame, the
measurements in that frame will be exactly as said in
SR, and there will not be any direct evidence of
anything being absolute, but only relative. The
power of LET is not to change any of the measurement
results, but only to provide to us a reasonable,
logical, physically understandable explanation of why
we measure what is measured. Did you wish to
indicate anything different than this?

shevek wrote:
>2) Did Krisher et al. rule out a LET local rest
>frame at rest with respect to the CMBR?

O'Barr comments:
   You will have to ask someone else about this. It
is reasonable to assume that as our measurements
extend to larger and larger portions of our universe,
that its average motion should be expected to
approach the rest frame of the ether. But it sure
would not have to do this. It would be expected but
could not be demanded.

shevek wrote:
>3) Do you feel an acceptance of the LET approach
>will require abandonment of SR? Even though you
>state the math is the same?
>
>I'm inclined to agree with Sarfatti - no abandonment
>required.

O'Barr comments:
   The real truth is, these two theories are the same
theory. No one needs to abandon the math of SR, not
even its approach.
   Let us be clear on exactly what SR is, and how
good it is. SR is a correct math approach. It
works. It is not in contradiction to LET. SR
supports LET. LET supports SR. And all test results
support both SR and LET. And we should appreciate
the math relationships that SR uses.
   But to be scientific, we must also be able to see
the limitations in SR. We make ourselves fools if we
blindly worship SR. So we must freely and quickly
understand that SR is only math. It cannot therefore
say anything about physical things. It is a very
weak theory, being only math. How is SR only math?
It only uses c as a math constant, and it uses the
requirement that all forms of the math must be the
same for every reference. Thus, we do not physical
understand what actually happens in SR. We do not
understand what physically occurs so that light is
always c, or why or how the math equations maintain
their same form. We just accept all this.
   But LET also works. And it is a physical theory,
which is more basic than SR, in that it provides the
physical base upon which the math of SR is eventually
derived. They thus end up being the same theory. SR
is the correct math, and LET is the correct physics
that goes with the correct math.

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

Relevant Pages

  • The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
    ... The Proper understanding of Modern Physics. ... There is no desire to destroy the math of SR. ... The MMX disproved the ether. ... measurement, but we also had to then determine what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Therefore physics is a knowledge ... different than what it is in another reference frame. ... electrodynamics book. ... time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Let us be sure that we know what the problem is!
    ... observer, in any valid SR measurement frame, measures ... a photon is never at ... Math does not lie, not even in SR. ... physics 'ended' a longer time ago. ...
    (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: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... >Velocities measured relative to that frame are just ... Obviously, in any measurement frame, the ... No one needs to abandon the math of SR, ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast