Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In . com
wrote:
Richard Perry wrote: ...
Tom Roberts posted a lengthy proof of the
experimental equality of LET and Special
Relativity, but in the end it is nothing more than
the an argument proving the equivalence of Special
Relativity to itself.

wrote:
Why is even a lengthy proof needed? Aren't they the
same thing except LET assumes one special frame (but
can't tell which one because it's indistinguishable
from others, so not so special after all), is there
more to it?

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
It is much like this: It is like cooking an apple
pie. One person knows that there is a baker who has
an oven, and 20 minutes in this oven makes a perfect
pie. This would be called a math theory. You have
an equation, you get an answer, and the answer works!
Everyone is happy!
But then there comes along a man who says that it
is not really the oven that does this, but it is the
temperature in the over that does it. And the time
it really takes depends on the temperature within the
oven. Now both of these individuals get good pies!
But which one knows the most? The one who only has
the correct math, or the one who knows the cause?

But how does he know it is the cause? Are we
supposed to believe him because he says so? Or
does he say something like, look, I change the
temperature from 350 to 325, and it takes longer
to bake the pie.

When you can tell us how to change the aether from
350 to 325, somebody will want to listen to you.


Yes, it is true, that LET and SR provides the
exact some results! But with one, there is involved
in the concept the cause.

Or, it could be a myth. How would you know?

Cause and effects are
involved in LET, but not in SR. All you have in SR
is just the math. Thus, LET is superior! And it is
superior because it involves the physical ether, and
it describes exactly what the ether physically does
so that what we measure is measured.

FSVO "exactly". Suppose you notice that a clock
on a spaceship is ticking slower than your lab
clock. Can you say that this is because it is
moving faster through the aether, thus dilated more?
That would be a nice thing to conclude, if you could
conclude it -- but you cannot. Your lab clock might
easily be the faster one; LET gives you no clue which
of these is the correct statement.

Now it is true that the ether frame is not
directly available to us. Is this a problem? It
would be a problem, if the theory demanded that it
was to be available. But the theory itself shows
that it cannot be distinguish from any other frame,
specifically because of what it causes to happen. So
if we find that it does cause to happen exactly what
the theory says it causes to happen, then the fact
that the either cannot be made available is actually
support for the ether.

No. Failure to falsify aether in an experiment
that *could* falsify it would be support. Can you
name such an experiment?

It is good that things are
the way they are. Otherwise, the theory could not be
correct!

I hate to break the news to you, but it is *not*
correct, any more than SR itself is correct (except
as a limiting case of GR).

And anyone with a brain will know that what I say
is correct.

My brain should be examined for even reading you.

Harry wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Well LET may be superior from your novice vantage point. But LET is not
superior, to SR, for those who actually work in experimental physics.

Sure, if their only interest is their work - they couldn't care less.

Harald

Why use a dull axe when you can use a chainsaw.

"RP" wrote in message
...


RP wrote:



Harry wrote:

"RP" wrote in message
...
SNIP


Damn you're a funny guy! Why don't you just read the book that I
suggested to you?

Here again is what Roberts does wrong:
He starts from the ether frame, transforms to the frame of A. Moves B
and C at v wrt A, then transforms back to the ether frame to calculate
clock ticks. Clock ticks are calculated wrt the ether frame, not wrt
the
frame of A as specified in the argument. In the ether frame, indeed,
according to the lorentz transform there was an asymmetry of the
motions
of B and C wrt A. Problem is, this is no longer Lorentz, it's
Einstein.


That's Lorentz, and Poincare, and Einstein as well (except that the
last one would have called that the rest frame).
I explained similar things to you in the past, didn't I?

Apparently you don't recall...
Message-ID:

When Roberts transforms back to A to calculate ticks of the clocks B
and
C he sets A at rest wrt the ether, since this is exactly what the
lorentz transform accomplishes.

No, that is erroneous. You still didn't get it, after years... Then I
won't even try!

- I notice a significant No Comment...

Thus he has two ethers in motion wrt
each other, and yet maintains that A was in motion wrt the ether
throughout. Bull****. He's made precisely the same error as Lorentz,
you
know, the one that Einstein called him on. This is all a matter of
history, you are aware of that aren't you?

Richard Perry


And where was it that Einstein called on Lorentz' error?
People like you make my life more amusing, thanks!


You read the gedanken, please show how Lorentz gets the right answer
using the Galilean transform and physical alterations (only) to sticks
and rulers.

That has been shown many times. But as I told you, I won't bother anymore as
you convinced me that you can't follow it. And you did not deliver the
goods:
Where was it that Einstein called on Lorentz' error?

Simply saying, "Well, we can just set A at rest wrt the
ether since we don't know which frame the ether frame is", is the exact
error that I'm addressing.

That's fighting windmills, as that error didn't occur.

In the gedanken I'm supposing that we "do
know" which frame the ether frame is, and that A is in turn in motion
wrt it.
Are you going to say that clocks B and C will both tick slower than the
A clock even though they are in different states of motion wrt the ether
and A occupies a state of motion between these two?

No - of course not for *you refer to the ether frame*. Apparently you lost
track of reference frames...

And if you do, which
you must in order to remain consistent with the special relativistic
conclusion,

That's a big error, Perry.

then you have abandoned the absolute ether (which BTW was
one of Lorentz' premises). What's so hard about this Harald?

Perry it's dead easy, but I'm not going to spell it out for you this time.
Just one remark: you still don't understand special relativity.

Here is the crux of the matter:
Lorentz is a special case of special relativity in which K in the
transform is the ether frame. In this case x=0 and t=o and the offset
cancels out leaving only the resync component.

x and t are coordinates - perhaps that's the crux of the matter!

Thus if you always assume
the ether frame to perform your calculations then you will be able to
derive the lorentz transform from Lorentz premises of: Galilean
relativity with absolute simultaneity, and physical resync of rulers and
clocks. The moment that you set K in motion wrt the ether frame all bets
are off. This is what the gedanken proves, that is, that the lorentz
transform forbids an absolute ether. This is something that Einstein saw
, that he failed to formalize a proof of the difference between his
theory and Lorentz doesn't change a thing.

I see that you won't deliver the goods...

Now you have an example that
provides different predictions of the two theories, and yet you refuse
to admit that LET and SR aren't equivalent. They are equivalent only i
the special case that I outlined, and ironically the one that Tom and
yourself choose whenever attempting to prove their universal equivalence.

In fact Ilja pointed out to me that Einstein's and Lorentz' interpretation
may not be equivalent for QM ...
Maybe talk again another day. Until then, Good luck!

Harald

Harry wrote:

"RP" wrote in message
...


RP wrote:



Harry wrote:


"RP" wrote in message
...
SNIP



Damn you're a funny guy! Why don't you just read the book that I
suggested to you?

Here again is what Roberts does wrong:
He starts from the ether frame, transforms to the frame of A. Moves B
and C at v wrt A, then transforms back to the ether frame to calculate
clock ticks. Clock ticks are calculated wrt the ether frame, not wrt

the

frame of A as specified in the argument. In the ether frame, indeed,
according to the lorentz transform there was an asymmetry of the

motions

of B and C wrt A. Problem is, this is no longer Lorentz, it's

Einstein.


That's Lorentz, and Poincare, and Einstein as well (except that the
last one would have called that the rest frame).
I explained similar things to you in the past, didn't I?


Apparently you don't recall...
Message-ID:


When Roberts transforms back to A to calculate ticks of the clocks B

and

C he sets A at rest wrt the ether, since this is exactly what the
lorentz transform accomplishes.

No, that is erroneous. You still didn't get it, after years... Then I
won't even try!


- I notice a significant No Comment...


Thus he has two ethers in motion wrt
each other, and yet maintains that A was in motion wrt the ether
throughout. Bull****. He's made precisely the same error as Lorentz,

you

know, the one that Einstein called him on. This is all a matter of
history, you are aware of that aren't you?

Richard Perry


And where was it that Einstein called on Lorentz' error?
People like you make my life more amusing, thanks!


You read the gedanken, please show how Lorentz gets the right answer
using the Galilean transform and physical alterations (only) to sticks
and rulers.


That has been shown many times. But as I told you, I won't bother anymore as
you convinced me that you can't follow it. And you did not deliver the
goods:
Where was it that Einstein called on Lorentz' error?


Simply saying, "Well, we can just set A at rest wrt the
ether since we don't know which frame the ether frame is", is the exact
error that I'm addressing.


That's fighting windmills, as that error didn't occur.


In the gedanken I'm supposing that we "do
know" which frame the ether frame is, and that A is in turn in motion
wrt it.
Are you going to say that clocks B and C will both tick slower than the
A clock even though they are in different states of motion wrt the ether
and A occupies a state of motion between these two?


No - of course not for *you refer to the ether frame*. Apparently you lost
track of reference frames...


And if you do, which
you must in order to remain consistent with the special relativistic
conclusion,


That's a big error, Perry.


then you have abandoned the absolute ether (which BTW was
one of Lorentz' premises). What's so hard about this Harald?


Perry it's dead easy, but I'm not going to spell it out for you this time.
Just one remark: you still don't understand special relativity.


Here is the crux of the matter:
Lorentz is a special case of special relativity in which K in the
transform is the ether frame. In this case x=0 and t=o and the offset
cancels out leaving only the resync component.


x and t are coordinates - perhaps that's the crux of the matter!


Thus if you always assume
the ether frame to perform your calculations then you will be able to
derive the lorentz transform from Lorentz premises of: Galilean
relativity with absolute simultaneity, and physical resync of rulers and
clocks. The moment that you set K in motion wrt the ether frame all bets
are off. This is what the gedanken proves, that is, that the lorentz
transform forbids an absolute ether. This is something that Einstein saw
, that he failed to formalize a proof of the difference between his
theory and Lorentz doesn't change a thing.


I see that you won't deliver the goods...

And why should I continually repeat what I've already related to you.
"There are infinitely many ethers". This was derived from the transform.
IOW Einstein was stating outright that the lorentz transform is
contradictory to the premise of an absolute ether. He thought so little
of Lorentz's view that he purposely avoided the subject, not even making
reference to him in his papers. It seems to have never occurred to you
to track down the source of his disagreement.

Richard Perry



Now you have an example that
provides different predictions of the two theories, and yet you refuse
to admit that LET and SR aren't equivalent. They are equivalent only i
the special case that I outlined, and ironically the one that Tom and
yourself choose whenever attempting to prove their universal equivalence.


In fact Ilja pointed out to me that Einstein's and Lorentz' interpretation
may not be equivalent for QM ...
Maybe talk again another day. Until then, Good luck!

Harald

In .com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
. . .

deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
It is much like this: It is like cooking an
apple pie. One person knows that there is a baker
who has an oven, and 20 minutes in this oven makes
a perfect pie. This would be called a math theory.
You have an equation, you get an answer, and the
answer works! Everyone is happy!
But then there comes along a man who says that
it is not really the oven that does this, but it is
the temperature in the over that does it. And the
time it really takes depends on the temperature
within the oven. Now both of these individuals get
good pies! But which one knows the most? The one
who only has the correct math, or the one who knows
the cause?

wrote:
But how does he know it is the cause? Are we
supposed to believe him because he says so? Or
does he say something like, look, I change the
temperature from 350 to 325, and it takes longer
to bake the pie.

When you can tell us how to change the aether from
350 to 325, somebody will want to listen to you.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
How do you know the cause? By the theory! And
how do you know the theory? By testing it! This is
what science is all about! SR was tested! SR was
found to be correct! And by the rules of science, we
must accept SR! And we do! And this is all correct
science! But what do we get with accepting SR? All
we get is just the proper math description of what we
will measure. This is all that SR is, and this is
all that it provides. It is only math, with no
physical understanding at all! This makes it a very
weak theory, a very poor theory, a theory that
provides to us zero understanding as to the causes
and the why's and the how's!
So let us take LET! This is a different kind of
a theory than SR. It starts with physical
assumptions: The physical ether, with a frame at
relative rest with respect to it, and this ether
controls the speed of light. It presents physical
evidence that the rates of clocks would be affected
by motion in this ether (light clocks are used as a
specific physical example, producing the exact math
required), and the lengths of rulers are affected
(the diameter of an equal potential sphere is used,
and the exact relationships are obtained both for the
longitudinal and the perpendicular directions.) And
so the theory is complete, with physical descriptions
and with physical causes and effects in place.
And so, being scientific, we should test this
theory! But guess what! This theory has already
been tested, and it has been found to be perfect! It
is found to be just as perfect as SR, because lo and
behold, it is SR! And thus the physical base to LET
has been fully and completely scientifically
established.
In LET, how do you change the temperature? You
change the rate of motion! And sure enough, these
changes produce the exact results that LET says would
be produced, the exact same predictions as the
correct math of SR says will be obtained. These are
all correct facts, as we presently have them and know
them!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Yes, it is true, that LET and SR provides the
exact some results! But with one, there is
involved in the concept the cause.

wrote:
Or, it could be a myth. How would you know?

O'Barr comments:
As was explained, by the application of correct
science, which includes testing, and the application
of man's intellect in examining these test results!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Cause and effects are
involved in LET, but not in SR. All you have in
SR is just the math. Thus, LET is superior! And
it is superior because it involves the physical
ether, and it describes exactly what the ether
physically does so that what we measure is
measured.

wrote:
FSVO "exactly". Suppose you notice that a clock
on a spaceship is ticking slower than your lab
clock. Can you say that this is because it is
moving faster through the aether, thus dilated more?
That would be a nice thing to conclude, if you could
conclude it -- but you cannot. Your lab clock might
easily be the faster one; LET gives you no clue
which of these is the correct statement.

O'Barr comments:
And isn't this perfect? For this is the exact way
things are found to be within LET!
Reality is real, and reality does not allow anyone
to do anything that reality does not allow to be
done! If we cannot conclude something, this is
critical only if LET says we should be able to
conclude it! And LET does not say that we should be
able to conclude it, exactly as we find things to be!
But LET does conclude that if we send one clock up
and back, that this moving clock will have gone an
absolute farther distance in the ether than the clock
that followed a straight line, in the same absolute
time, and thus will show less time. And this is
exactly absolutely true! There are no paradoxes in
LET!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Now it is true that the ether frame is not
directly available to us. Is this a problem? It
would be a problem, if the theory demanded that it
was to be available. But the theory itself shows
that it cannot be distinguish from any other
frame, specifically because of what it causes to
happen. So if we find that it does cause to
happen exactly what
the theory says it causes to happen, then the fact
that the either cannot be made available is
actually support for the ether.

wrote:
No. Failure to falsify aether in an experiment
that *could* falsify it would be support. Can you
name such an experiment?

O'Barr comments:
Can you name any experiment that has been done in
SR? Since LET and SR are, mathematically, the same
theory, then any test done in SR, where the results
are found to support SR, would also support LET. And
any testing done that would falsify SR, would also
falsify LET. We must be fair in all this! LET is
the most well proved theory that has ever existed,
step by step by step, with SR, at every data point
that has been taken!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
It is good that things are
the way they are. Otherwise, the theory could not
be correct!

wrote:
I hate to break the news to you, but it is *not*
correct, any more than SR itself is correct (except
as a limiting case of GR).

O'Barr comments:
Be sure to know that there is only one reality!
And in the domain where SR is 'proper,' this domain
has to also be the proper domain for GR! And if SR
is found to be weak in its domain (that is, LET is
found to be superior), then LET is also found to be
superior to GR, in this domain! You cannot escape!
Both SR and GR have the same identical weaknesses in
SR's domain, and they will both fall to LET (that is,
to an abs o lute reference frame approach)!

Gerald L. O 'Barr wrote:
And any o ne with a brain will know that what I
say is c o rrect.

m wrote:
My brain sho uld be examined for even reading you.

O'Barr (glo barr) comments:
It has now been examined, and found to be doing
many good things! No charge for this service!
ooo0ooo

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In .com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
. . .

[snip to a section for which fixed-font is recommended]

O'Barr comments:
Be sure to know that there is only one reality!
And in the domain where SR is 'proper,' this domain
has to also be the proper domain for GR! And if SR
is found to be weak in its domain (that is, LET is
found to be superior), then LET is also found to be
superior to GR, in this domain! You cannot escape!
Both SR and GR have the same identical weaknesses in
SR's domain, and they will both fall to LET (that is,
to an abs o lute reference frame approach)!

Gerald L. O 'Barr wrote:
And any o ne with a brain will know that what I
say is c o rrect.

m wrote:
My brain sho uld be examined for even reading you.

O'Barr (glo barr) comments:
It has now been examined, and found to be doing
many good things! No charge for this service!
ooo0ooo

I don't get your character alignment joke here. But
then, there's a lot I don't get about you. I do like
how you chose o (nil?) and blank to be your significant
characters -- that seems appropriate, somehow.

And thank you, I believe you have completely cured me
of my irrational desire to read your posts.

wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In .com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
. . .

wrote:
[snip to a section for which fixed-font is recommended]


wrote:
I don't get your character alignment joke here. But
then, there's a lot I don't get about you. I do like
how you chose o (nil?) and blank to be your significant
characters -- that seems appropriate, somehow.

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Don't try too hard. Like many mistakes you make,
it is usually a lack of care. There are differences between
zero, 0, and the letter 'o.'
But if you want to play games, the most solid reality
is this: there is, at the base of our reality, the simplest
possible reality, a something versus nothing reality!
And thus a zero, a nothing, is the most important
concept that any person can have and to understand,
and it is this nothing that makes it possible to have
this something, that allows us to have what we have!
Now you needed an excuse to ignore what I was
saying, and I gave it to you, and you found it. But
so what? Are you going to do what you should?
Now this is the question, and it is a good question.
What are you going to do about these good
thoughts from O'Barr?

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Uh oh, I feel a relapse coming on... I have stopped
payment on my cheque for your therapeutic services.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:

[snip]

Don't try too hard. Like many mistakes you make,
it is usually a lack of care. There are differences between
zero, 0, and the letter 'o.'

Which might be why I typed an 'o' in my response,
rather than a zero. My point was merely to ask you
what its special meaning might be for *you*. And
you did not disappoint:

But if you want to play games, the most solid reality
is this: there is, at the base of our reality, the simplest
possible reality, a something versus nothing reality!
And thus a zero, a nothing, is the most important
concept that any person can have and to understand,
and it is this nothing that makes it possible to have
this something, that allows us to have what we have!

I think the 'o' must be a picture of your navel.

wrote:
. . .

delete by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
You are running away from the problem!
Just because this is easy, to run away,
does not mean you should do it.


LET is superior. It is as math perfect
as SR. But in addition to this, LET is also
physically perfect. It has no real breaks in
symmetry, no real jumps in time. It has a
physically possible 3-D space, and it has the
potential of full and complete causes and effects
in place. It is the simplest. It has no
paradoxes, not even imagined paradoxes.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)

Gerald
If you believe that relativity results in paradox, imagined or
otherwise, then you certainly don't understand the theory. In this case
you are trying to introduce a problem, paradox, which doesn't exist.

James