The Vision of our reality!

Preliminary introductions:
Is there anyone who would like to understand our
reality? Of course, any physicist would love to
understand the base to our reality. And right here,
in this very article, you are going to have the base
to our reality presented to you. Will anyone believe
it? No one has yet!
But this is a good question. Why am I not
believed? I have a past history that should allow
you to believe what I say. I am even a West Point
graduate. Why would anyone think that I would not
want to know the truth and tell the truth? I have a
Master's degree in Physics, and a minor in Math. I
might not know everything, but at least I do
understand the basics. And all the things I present
here have been verified by computer calculations
using the math equations that come from the
assumptions being used in this article.
I was a physicist for General Dynamics for 29
years. Should I say I have never made a mistake in
physics for all these 29 years? Well, in full
honesty, I cannot say that. There was one time when
I held up a test for several hours because we were
receiving some unexpected data. I assumed that this
unexpected data was due to an error in the test
equipment, and I would not allow the tests to
continue until these errors were corrected. But the
error was actually due to improper test conditions,
and when the proper test conditions were achieved,
everything was perfect.
So it was my error in attributing the incorrect
data to a failure in the test equipment, and not to
the test conditions. And it took me a few hours
before I came to realize this error. So I have at
least made one mistake in my life.
But you better also believe that I was most often
correct. Not only correct, but I have 5 patent
disclosures that General Dynamics was willing to
accept. Now the only reason to actually mention
General Dynamics, they thought enough of me and my
ideas on this subject (which had nothing to do with
their direct interests), that they prepared a report
for me to publish this work, but no one would even
read it, let alone publish it. Isn't that
interesting! And it was a professionally prepared
paper, with full internal reviews! And not one
single thing has been in need of being changed since
it was approved.
Now no matter what I say, such talk is not and
should not be convincing to anyone. Talk is just
talk. The only facts (or data) really needed are
those that are found in the presentation itself, and
in any direct check of the work being presented. And
today, with our modern computers, anyone who can
compute will be able to make direct confirmations to
their heart's content.

Formal Introduction:
The very base to our reality is, in one sense,
very simple: Our reality is the simplest possible
reality, consisting of only matter and space. All
'points' of matter are identical to all other
'points' of matter. And the same with space: All
'points' of space are identical to all other knowable
'points' of space. Thus, any fixed finite volume
that consists of only matter, consists of the
identical amount of matter (and has the same inertia)
as any other finite volume of matter of the same
size. And all points of space, of any size, has no
matter, or no inertia.
So what are the complexities? Matter is
distributed within space as particles, and these
particles are all different in their mass, size,
shape, distribution, rotations, directions of
motions, momentum, kinetic energies, etc.
So we see that on this most base level, we have in
one way, an ultimate of simplicity, being only a
difference in being something (matter) or nothing
(space.) And yet we also have a world of an infinite
number of particles. Neither of these extremes seems
helpful in coming back to our reality that consists
of multitudes of particles, but we have systems after
systems of identical particles. And almost all these
particles have characteristics that are much more
different than just mass. So it seems as if this
approach is doomed from the very start. But we must
continue.
We thus see that our world (or the base to our
world) begins as if it were a gas, but the particles
that make up this gas are all different in their
sizes and/or mass. This is different than in how we
assume gases to be, but it cannot change any of the
basic concepts of a gas. In fact, we know very well
what to expect when there are different size atoms in
a gas, and that they all share an equal potential of
energy. There ends up being no problem with anything
when different sizes or mass of particles are
involved.
But we also know that such a base, with our
reality being a gas, has features that do not match
our known reality. We know that large particles that
move at a high velocity in a gas, experience a
resistance (or drag) to their motion, if this
velocity is relative to the mean velocity of the gas,
and its magnitude is large compared to the speed of
the gas particles, etc. We have not yet observe such
a drag in any free space.
It is at this point that we introduce an act that
will mitigate this problem of drag of large
particles. Not only will it mitigate this problem of
drag or friction, but it will also allow us, for the
very first time, to obtain a physical model (a
physical model that works) of Quantum Mechanics (QM)
and of gravity forces. For example, we will have our
first demonstration of LeSage's approach to a
physical model for attractive forces such as gravity.
Please note that 'mitigation' was not meant to
say that it entirely removes this drag. But this act
does place it in a more acceptable lower or second
order range, and for those who might care to
understand such things, it will eventually provide us
with both a forward and a rearward component of
forces.
What is this miracle that accomplishes all of the
above? It is changing the math equations used for
collisions. We will no longer use the set of
solutions to the collision equations now used; we
will use the second set of the collision equations.
And what is the second set of the collision
equations? They are spalls! Spalls will be the
solution that will make it possible for matter to
move through space as if it were empty. Spalls!
Spalls will make QM become real and understandable.
Spalls will give us forces, even attractive forces.
And this article is an introduction to these spalls.


So let us look again at this gas that exists on
the very lowest level. In present day physics,
according to simple Newtonian physics, where a gas
consists of atoms, where conservation of mass, energy
and momentum is observed, all atoms remain the same
mass after a collision as they had before their
collision. And all collisions result in a bounce,
where each of the colliding particles returns from
the direction it had come.
But down on this deeper level, down on the level
where we are in this gas that makes up our lowest
level (much lower than the 'gas of atoms' mentioned
above), the following is observed: Yes, conservation
of mass, momentum and kinetic energy is still
observed, perfectly. But the conservation of mass is
not observed particle by particle, but only collision
by collision. The mass that is present, the sum of
the mass, remains constant, but the amount of mass
that makes up any one of the two particles in a
collision can change. What is gained by the one has
to be what is lost by the other, but this kind of a
change can occur during the collision. And this is
important. And it immediately introduces the QM
affect where there is a degree of uncertainty in the
mass of any of these small ether like particles.
But a spall concept is more than just this
slight exchange in mass: The two particles that
result in a collision appear to have gone through
each other, in that the particle that that was moving
in one direction, appears to continue in that same
direction, and the particle that had been moving in
the opposite direction, appears to still be moving in
its original direction. So the exchange of mass was
not necessarily small, but of an amount that the
particles seemed to have changed sides.

A figure is much better at explaining this spall
effect:
(Note, this figure will not show correctly unless
you use a fixed width font! Be sure that at least
this section is shown in a fixed width font!)


Before the hit:

Particle A moving towards particle B. Particle A
has a velocity VA to the right, but the velocity of
particle B, VB, is zero at the start.

A B
VA --- VB = 0
___
_ | |
|_| | |
|___|


They hit!

Particles A and B become momentarily one!

\ /
\ /
___
_| |
--- |_ | ----
|___|

/ \
/ \

After the hit, two new particles appear, B' and A':


B' A' ---
___
_| _| _
|_ |_ |_|
|___|



Mass A plus mass B = mass A' plus mass B'
Or:
Mass A' = Mass A - d ; Mass B' = Mass B + d
And d is zero, or at least very small.


Now this theory, at this point of time, deals
with the results of such spalls, where particles A
and B change their positions relative to each other
in these collisions. And the whole science, at this
point, is built upon a study of what happens when
these two particles experience such a situation, but
often ends up with still a slight change in mass, d.
We need to look at this very carefully: In the
above figure, the total spall was obviously mass A'.
But the actual spall of interest ends up being just
d, which is A - A'. Thus the spall is often said to
be zero, if we are going to take d as being the spall
of concern. Even though we know that there has to
always be a finite spall in terms of the total hit
being analyzed, we are going to say that d will be
the spall, and that it will always be seen to be
small, and that it can be plus or minus or zero.

If mass A' exactly equals mass A (d is zero),
then the velocity of A' is identical to the original
velocity of A, and it would appear as if A went
through B, as if there had been no collision. This
type of an interaction is called a perfect spall,
where A collides with B, and a spall of mass A
occurs, leaving behind a particle of mass B. If the
masses are thus correct, and the identity of these
two new particles are properly assigned according to
their mass, we will then have a new particle A and a
new particle B, with no characteristics (other than
shape) being changed. Even the shape of one of them,
particle A, could even appear to be near the same
shape as it was before they had collided.


Now of course, there could be no reality at all
if there were never any changes (if d was always
zero.) So yes, if the mass of the spalls are
sometimes different than what it would be if things
were not change, then we will see some very nice
effects. But in essence, what we see here is this:
To the degree to which d is always zero, we can have
a background of a world (even an ether background) in
which there could be an unending amount of matter and
energy. And the rest of our reality could exist
entirely independent of it, and independent of its
relative motions. None of these things would matter
as long as all spalls are spalls of the exact correct
amount of matter. And thus, this miracle of having
an ether, an ether that has no first order effects,
is now able to be seen in vision. And we are now
ready to address our full reality.

The effects of the ether, and its interaction with
our world, will be as limited as we need it. The
only effects will be seen to the degree that spalls
are not exactly equal in mass to the mass of the
original particles involved. And thus the
interaction of any type of particle will solely
depend on each particle, and on how much interaction
it has with the ether. Suddenly, we have some very
interesting interactions, and abilities, that have
never existed before.


The guides:
So let us set up at least a few general guides.
With spalls, we do have a new problem. If the mass
of particles can change in a collision, then some
controls must exist to limit these changes. It would
not be good if the average mass of any stable
particle were to change too much. And these changes
in mass are all due to any parameter what was
affecting the size of these spalls.

Now there is no way of us really knowing all the
factors that might be affecting the sizes of spalls.
But if we do have stable particles, then the
following rules have to be followed: Over time (over
any representative series of hits) the average spall
must be equal to the average particle causing the
spalls, and the sums of d's must approach zero.
Therefore, all rules that will be applied to the d's
produced for any stable particle must result in such
actions.
Thus, any particle that produced no changes in the
d's received would work. Any particle that reduced
all d's to zero would work as long as such a particle
was obtaining an equal number of positive and
negative d's. Any particle that produced d's would
work, as long as there were an equal number of plus
and minus d's. So yes, several ways can exist where
stability in size can be maintained.

Now to have different types of particles, then
these parameters on changes in spalls must be
different for different particles, and it must be
these changes in d's, changes besides just
differences in their total mass, that can make one
type of particle different than another. So here are
some simple rules that we will follow:
We will assume that this background (this ether)
has some kind of an average mass or size to the
particles that make up this ether. We will assume
that within this ether (not directly a part of the
ether) there are larger particles that exist in this
ether that are also reasonably stable in their mass.
Thus, a stable particle could not continuously lose
mass to the ether, nor could it continuously gain
mass. Thus, we will always set spall parameters to
do the following:
1) No spall parameter will result in a continuous
loss or a continuous gain of mass for any stable
particle.
2) Spall parameters can change or affect the
dispersion of sizes of particles in the ether, but
their average size of ether particles must remain a
constant.
3) There must be some differences between
different types of particles, and since there is only
the dispersion in the ether that is allowed to be
changed, then we will at this point say that some
particles will allow the dispersion of sizes in the
ether to increase, and other types of particles will
allow the dispersions of sizes in the ether to
decrease.
4) We will assume that the net effects are such
(due to the numbers or rate in which these changes
are accomplished) that the average dispersion within
the ether remains a reasonable constant over time.

Now the reason why all this is important is mainly
time. We probably could set up many differences, and
in time, some of these things would come to an
eventual balance, and we would get an effect that
would mimic reality. But since we do not have
millions of years to wait for a full equal balance to
be achieved, it is nice to begin with parameters that
begin in a balanced way, and remains in a balance, so
that we can see the final results in a more instant
way. Thus, the above rules are not to be taken
lightly, and at the same time, they really are not
important in the end, if we really had the time for
them to come to their own equilibrium.

The results:
Let us set up a test where there are two different
kinds of particles, one of large mass (A), and one of
medium mass (B), existing in an ether with a average
mass of m and with a known degree of dispersion.
That is, the ether itself has an average size ether
particle (m), a small size of ether particle (m-d),
and a large size ether particle (m+d.) We will
assume that A B m d.
We can set the dispersion of the ether to be
affected by A and B particle in these ways: A will
cause the particles in the ether that interacts with
it to all spall in such a way that the ether all
becomes just a mass of m (the dispersion goes to
zero.) The B particle will cause all the particles
in the ether to become either m+d or m-d. In other
words, the dispersion will have increased. Now of
course such acts will easily result in what some can
instantly recognize to be what could become
saturation type conditions. And this is especially
true if we were to use a simple one-dimensional check
on the forces for such acts. But that is O.K. Let
us first see if there are any forces created by such
changes. And any quick check will show that there
are forces. Not only do we have forces, but we have
a compound of forces, consisting of a coupling of
both attractive and repulsive situations.

So there you have it. We now have particles that
are constantly changing their mass (A, A+d, A-d,
etc.; B, B+d, B-d, etc; m, m+d, m-d, etc. And when
you have a long series of such interactions, being
caused by an ether background that consists of a
series of m, m+d, m-d, with equal partitioning of
energy, as would exist under equilibrium conditions,
you will see forces being established between these
particles.
I suggest you all read the details where such was
done at
http://groups.google.com/group/globarrphysics
Or do your own experimenting. It is a pleasure to
work with this approach.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote in message

The Vision of our reality!

As I said before, no one will pay attention to your views unless
you and Ken Seto both acknowledge that your approaches are
in fact equivalent - and that he was there first.

Dirk Vdm

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
...
The Vision of our reality!

Preliminary introductions:
Is there anyone who would like to understand our
reality? Of course, any physicist would love to
understand the base to our reality. And right here,
in this very article, you are going to have the base
to our reality presented to you. Will anyone believe
it? No one has yet!
But this is a good question. Why am I not
believed? I have a past history that should allow
you to believe what I say.

That depends on what you say ;-)

I am even a West Point
graduate. Why would anyone think that I would not
want to know the truth and tell the truth? I have a
Master's degree in Physics, and a minor in Math. I
might not know everything, but at least I do
understand the basics. And all the things I present
here have been verified by computer calculations
using the math equations that come from the
assumptions being used in this article.
I was a physicist for General Dynamics for 29
years. Should I say I have never made a mistake in
physics for all these 29 years? Well, in full
honesty, I cannot say that. There was one time when
I held up a test for several hours because we were
receiving some unexpected data. I assumed that this
unexpected data was due to an error in the test
equipment, and I would not allow the tests to
continue until these errors were corrected. But the
error was actually due to improper test conditions,
and when the proper test conditions were achieved,
everything was perfect.
So it was my error in attributing the incorrect
data to a failure in the test equipment, and not to
the test conditions. And it took me a few hours
before I came to realize this error. So I have at
least made one mistake in my life.
But you better also believe that I was most often
correct. Not only correct, but I have 5 patent
disclosures that General Dynamics was willing to
accept. Now the only reason to actually mention
General Dynamics, they thought enough of me and my
ideas on this subject (which had nothing to do with
their direct interests), that they prepared a report
for me to publish this work, but no one would even
read it, let alone publish it. Isn't that
interesting! And it was a professionally prepared
paper, with full internal reviews! And not one
single thing has been in need of being changed since
it was approved.

You trust the peer review process too much...

Now no matter what I say, such talk is not and
should not be convincing to anyone. Talk is just
talk. The only facts (or data) really needed are
those that are found in the presentation itself, and
in any direct check of the work being presented. And
today, with our modern computers, anyone who can
compute will be able to make direct confirmations to
their heart's content.

Formal Introduction:
The very base to our reality is, in one sense,
very simple: Our reality is the simplest possible
reality, consisting of only matter and space.

IMHO that's already too complex: the simplest reality consists of only ether
(or "space"), with matter some kind of wave phenomenon that takes place in
it. And nothing guaratnees that our reality *must* be the simplest
possible - probability law allows for the possibility of something existing
that is slightly more complex than the simplest option imaginable.

Thus, already your first sentence I don't believe! And that you are a
physicist doesn't give you the authority to tell us what is behind our
observations.

[snip spall theory]

In conclusion: I may agree with your title but not with the contents.

Regards,
Harald

"harry" wrote in message
...
|
| "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
| ...
| The Vision of our reality!
|
| Preliminary introductions:
| Is there anyone who would like to understand our
| reality? Of course, any physicist would love to
| understand the base to our reality. And right here,
| in this very article, you are going to have the base
| to our reality presented to you. Will anyone believe
| it? No one has yet!
| But this is a good question. Why am I not
| believed? I have a past history that should allow
| you to believe what I say.
|
| That depends on what you say ;-)

Hint: you are a stupid LYING arsehole.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...a3996664d--Why did Einstein saythe speed of light from A to B is c-v,the speed of light from B to A is c+v,the "time" each way is the same?1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)whereA = (0,0,0,t)A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))x' = x-vt Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin cording to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.Androcles

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
...
| The Vision of our reality!
|
| Preliminary introductions:
| Is there anyone who would like to understand our
| reality?

Already do. It is you that does not.

--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
Androcles

"harry" wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
. . .

"harry" wrote:
Thus, already your first sentence I don't believe! And that you are a
physicist doesn't give you the authority to tell us what is behind our
observations.

[snip spall theory]

In conclusion: I may agree with your title but not with the contents.


Thank you, Harry, for at least responding. But:

Why didn't you use any math analysis?
Let us take it by the numbers. Let us
apply simple algebra:

For conservation of mass, we can write:

m1 + M1 = m2 + M2 1)

where m1 and M1 are the mass of the two particles
before they collide, with m1 being the small particle
coming in from the left, moving towards the right,
and M1 being the large particle. And m2 and M2 being
the two particles after they collide. And m2 being
now on the right, still moving to the right, and M2
being the larger of the two particles.
For conservation of momentum:

m1*V1 + M1*U1 = m2*V2 + M2*U2 2)

For conservation of energy:

(.5)m1*V1^2 + (.5)M1*U1^2

= (.5)m2*V2^2 + (.5)M2*U2^2 3)

Simultaneously solving these three equations for V2
and U2, we obtain:

m1V1 + M1U1 +/- (V1 - U1)(M1M2m1/m2)^.5
V2 = ------------------------------------------ 4)
m1 + M1

and

m1V1 + M1U1 -/+ (V1 - U1)(m1m2M1/M2)^.5
U2 = ------------------------------------------ 5)
m1 + M1

We must now choose a solution. Also, we will
introduce the variable "d," that represents the
exchange of mass. The chosen solutions a

m1V1 + M1U1 + (V1 - U1)(M1M2m1/m2)^.5
V2 = ---------------------------------------- 6)
m1 + M1


m1V1 + M1U1 - (V1 - U1)(m1m2M1/M2)^.5
U2 = ---------------------------------------- 7)
m1 + M1

Here, m2 could be replaced with "m1 - d", and M2
by "M1 + d."

This maintains conservation of mass, but shows
that there is really only one new variable being
introduced. Also, if "d" is assumed to be small
(which we do assume in this presentation), then it is
easy to expand these equations in "d/m" and/or "d/M,"
to obtain approximate solutions if one cared to
obtain such solutions.

DISCUSSIONS OF NEW EQUATIONS

Equations 6) and 7) are the equations for which we
seek. They are a solution set to equations 1), 2)
and 3). Very few texts show the complete solution
sets, equations 4) and 5), and fewer yet work with
the set of solutions which we have chosen.
It does need to be observed that m2 has a more
positive velocity than M2. This means that m2, the
body that is associated with m1 because of size (d
being small), is now to the right of M2. This seems
to indicate that m1 went through M1. What really
occurs is a "spall." When m1 hits M1, it becomes a
part of M1, and a piece of M1, opposite of the point
of hit, breaks off and continues on in the same
direction as the original m1. The original figure
shows a collision between two bodies where a spall is
produced. On this basic level, there are no losses
of energy associated with these spalls.
Now anyone can take any physics book, and find out
the solutions they provide for a normal collision
between two bodies. The solutions they provide are
the solutions we would use in a normal gas. And in a
normal gas, no atom in that gas attracts any other
atom. No attractive forces at all exists anywhere in
the dynamics of a normal gas. But if you would use
these new equations, you will find that these
equations are non-linear equations, and being non-
linear, you can get net attractive like forces to
appear between particles that are sharing and
exchanging their mass that can be related to these
d's.
And thus, simple Newtonian physics has become,
right before your very eyes, has now become QM, and
you should explorer some of these concepts before you
say the things you are now saying. Do we not have
one qualified expert on this net? Why do you have to
be led inch by inch. All this should immediately
jump right up at you! Surely you must all know
something!
Look, here is one obvious point: If you took a
gas where all collisions result in the spalls being
proposed, what would be the pressure of the gas in a
container? If d were zero, the pressure would be
zero! In fact, there could be no gas held in a
container! The gas would go right through any wall
of any container. And thus, as was said, there would
be no pressure! A wall presented to such a gas, no
matter how fast that wall was moving, it could not
affect the motion of one singe particle that existed.
Each particle would, in turn, would simple spall its
way through the wall, and not one single effect would
be seen. And is this not the strange ether that we
must have if we are to have the reality that we see
around us?
Come on, people, put on your thinking caps!


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Did I forgot to invite all of you to go to:
http://groups.google.com/group/globarrphysics


Why won't any of you just look at what O'Barr has
done? We will set up an ether gas that has a mean
size of ether particles, and within this gas, we
place two other larger sizes of particles that are
reasonably stable in size. We are going to allow the
ether gas to interact with these other two sizes of
particles.
When we set up an ether gas that is based upon
spalls, we get the following parameters. We have all
the large particles in this ether gas exchanging mass
with every ether particle that hits it. And this
exchange can be perfect (d = zero), or it can be a
little more or a little less (d = +/-d) etc. Thus,
all particles, right here on the lowest level, begin
with the capability of having an uncertainly of mass.
And all particles, since they are all in the same
ether, are seeing the same degree of uncertainty,
more or less.
And because all collisions result in spalls, then
all these large particles can move within this gas
with no first order pressure drag. Do you hear that?
Doesn't that just catch your attention? Now of
course I am not saying that there are no velocity
effects, but I am saying that the velocity effects
are easy to deal with, since they are not the primary
effects. What is there is actually necessary at the
point where we might want to put a limit to the
velocity of light, etc.
And because they are exchanging mass, then the
sizes of ether particles must also vary. We find
that their average size do not in general vary, but
we do find that the dispersions of their sizes vary.
Some large particles within the ether gas cause the
dispersions of sizes of ether particles to be
reduced, and some causes an increase. And thus, the
gradients within the ether are now known and
understood. There is not so much a difference in the
actual number of particles, not in their total
momentum or energy or directions, but merely a
difference in their different sizes.
And why is size so important? I do not really
know, but it might be because size can affect the
number of standing waves that might go from surface
to surface, etc), and this might affect the size of
the expected spalls, etc. And thus all these
parameters could really be directly related. But who
really cares if we can give any reason for anything,
as long as it works! And it works!
If one particle reacts differently to these
different dispersions than another, then in that
space, in the same space, these two particles might
respond exactly opposite to each other, and any
computer program can show you situations where this
in truth does happen. What a shame that not one of
you care to check this out. What kind of thinking
individuals are you? You do not trust yourself? You
do not really know how to solve some of these
equations? You do not know how to program? Exactly
what is your problem, that you do not want to check
me out?
I cannot believe that in this day of 2008, we do
not have one soul who can do such simple things!

Anyway, again I ask you to read my postings.
Or go to some of my sites. I have more than one.
But one of the latest is:

http://groups.google.com/group/globarrphysics

Thanks for reading,
Gerald L. O'Barr
+*********************Remove ... for e-mail

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
...
| Did I forgot to invite all of you to go to:

Yes, thank goodness.

[deletes by Androcles]

Thanks for reading.

--
Androcles

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

Subject: Ultimate Reality is both simple and
complicated!

Androcles wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Did I forgot to invite all of you to go to:

http://groups.google.com/group/globarrphysics


Androcles wrote:
Yes, thank goodness.

[deletes by Androcles]


O'Barr wrote:
Thanks for reading.

http://groups.google.com/group/globarrphysics



Androcles wrote:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?


O'Barr comments:
Einstein said this because he accepted the ether
point of view, and in the ether point of view, this
is correct. Now the actual (real or absolute) time
is not the same. But since one can arbitrarily set
the time at the clock at the turn-around point,
anyone can make the time to be measured to be the
same. This is all that needs to be understood. Have
you heard of time zones on this earth? By using time
zones, you can make the sun appear to be at high noon
in each and every time zone, but of course we all
know that this has no absolute meaning at all. Well,
in SR, you also use time zones. These time zones are
point by point. But they are only artificial
settings that allow the speed of light to not be c-v,
or c+v, but to only be c. There is nothing more to
it than this, an artificial setting of the clocks
being used so that such things will be measured
to artificially show c.
Now in order for this to work, the clocks do have
to physically slow down with their velocities in the
ether, but we now have good data to support this
slowing down of clocks. So yes, all these artificial
settings of the clocks will produce exactly what the
math says will be produced.


Androcles wrote:
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

O'Barr comments:
Well, these are a lot of variables you have used
up above, with some need of a lot of clarification.
You really only need three times (just three data
points): The time on clock A at the time the light
leaves, the time on clock B at the time the light
signal turns around, and the time on clock A when the
light returns to A.
You then take the mid point of the times read on
clock A. This is the time that should have been on
the clock at point B at the turn-around time. Find
out the difference between the actual time measured
at B with the mid-point time of clock A, and adjust
clock B's time by any difference seen.
Do I need to repeat any of this? You have Ta1,
Tb1, and Ta2. You take Tb1 - (Ta1 + Ta2)/2, and then
reduce the sync on clock B by this amount.


Androcles wrote:
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
figures/img22.gif


"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin

According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not
write the equation he wrote.


O'Barr comments:
Unless and until each step and assumption is
listed, then no one really knows what was done, and
whether or not anyone else did or did not do it.

Thanks again for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
+++++++++++++++++++++Remove...for e-mail.

Again and again: Please read:
http://groups.google.com/group/globarrphysics

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
...
| Subject: Ultimate Reality is both simple and
| complicated!
|
| Androcles wrote:
| Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
| Did I forgot to invite all of you to go to:
|
| http://groups.google.com/group/globarrphysics
|
|
| Androcles wrote:
| Yes, thank goodness.
|
| [deletes by Androcles]

[more deletes by Androcles]

More thanks for reading! Now **** off, you crank.

--
Androcles

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.