In .com
James wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

James wrote:
. . . You can call me fool, or liar, to your hearts
content but it adds nothing to your argument.

O'Barr comments:
You are right.
I was wrong to have said such things. What I
really should have said was that your thinking was
incorrect. Sorry that I am not better at such
things.
Thanks for correcting me in such a kind way!

James wrote:
You claimed LET is superior to SR because it
can explain WHY the local measurement for light is
always c. To do this you must invoke an ether. An
ether which you claim is real.

O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Might you also be able to see
some of your own biases?
The ether is not used just to explain why c is a
measured constant. The ether is first of all used so
that the speed of light could have a fixed absolute
velocity at all points in space. There does have to
be something everywhere in space to cause this to
happen. Otherwise, the velocity of light could not be
independent of its sources, etc.
And second: The ether is used to cause the rates
of clocks to vary with their velocities, at all
points in space. And this is not just an assumption.
The rate of a light clock will produce the exact math
function that is required, exactly, automatically!
And so if one clock works this way, why not all
clocks? We have never seen one clock be different
than another as far as their basic functions work.
There does have to be something, at all points in
space, to cause these things to happen.
And third, there has to be something to cause the
length of rulers to change with their velocities.
And again, this is not just an assumption! We can
take what is known about electro-magnetic properties,
and use the diameter of an equal potential sphere to
represent the changes in the lengths of rulers, and
get the exact math function needed. And there does
have to be something everywhere in space to cause
these effects.
And then 4th: We can show that the combined
effects, of a constant absolute velocity of light,
with the changes in rates of clocks as automatically
seen in a light clock, and the changes in the lengths
of rulers as automatically found in an equal
potential sphere, along with the proper syncing of
such clocks, automatically resulting in a constant
measurement of the speed of light.
And thus, at this point, we have SR math, when we
add the correct sync to the clocks being used. And
you want to call the ether as just a way to make c a
constant? All these things are a beauty to behold,
10 times more beauty than what you have in SR, and
all these independent but correlated effects that
naturally result in SR math is in itself a strong
suggestion that it is all real and is the way it is!
Everyone of these things are found to exist!
So yes, the ether is used to do what you say, but
it is not just a word. It is not just a word used to
give an explanation. It is a most complete science,
with full justification for saying what the rates of
clocks would be, for saying what the lengths of
rulers should be, and in explaining then why we can
measure the speed of light to be a constant. You
made it sound as if it was just an excuse. It is a
science, and you should be more honest in at least
saying as much as we do know about this science!
Obviously, we need to know more. But we do know
much, and the ether is not, as I said, just a word or
just an excuse!


James wrote:
Every attempt to detect a 'real' ether has ended
in failure.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
And this is all so incorrect! Can you tell me one
experiment where LET ether was tried to be detected
and it was not detected? You are saying things here
not because of any science that is known or exists,
but you are saying this to put false concepts into
people's minds!
I know what the ether is, and you will never be
able to confine it, to box it up, to weight it, to do
anything with it at all. And there is nothing in LET
that says anything like these things are possible!
So your thoughts up above are unscientific, and I
expect to hear from you a retraction!

James wrote:
"If you use a false premis [the ether exists in
nature] to explain WHY something 'IS' [why the local
speed of light is always measured to be c] your
explanation is false." Your conclusion that the
'ether exists in nature' because it has never been
shown to not exist IS unscientific. Fools logic.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, if a false premise were used, any explanation
based upon a false premise would normally be assumed
to be false. The question, however, that is being
addressed, is the premise false or not?
To determine if a premise or a theory is false or
not, is the purpose of science, and scientific
testing. So what test has been made to falsify LET?
Until this science has been accomplished, then
scientists should not go around and say that there
cannot be an ether.
It is not just this, but the ether, producing the
exact same math as SR, means that the LET ether is
just as well established, scientifically, as SR. In
fact, considering all the other things that LET can
do that SR cannot do, such as provide us real
physical understanding of what is really happening,
and doing all this in a simpler 3-D setting, we find
that LET is far superior to SR.
Also adding to LET favor, LET provides for us full
and complete causes and effects, it is a doable
approach, with the simplest of kinematics, with no
breaks in symmetry, no jumps in time, with no
physically impossible 4-D spacetime continuums, etc.
In fact, in every way possible, LET is completely
superior to SR. The only advantage that SR has is
that it, being just math, might be easier to use, and
it might have one less step in deriving it. But LET
does not prevent anyone from using SR math, since it
is the same. So there really is not one thing lost
by using LET. It is all gain!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Harry wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
...


Harry wrote:


"RP" wrote in message
...

SNIP

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".


I don't recall that. And in what article did Einstein state that? I like to
see the context.
Thanks in advance!

Ok, you've forced me to research the literature. The results are
in....and in my favor

From "Ideas and Opinions" ISBN 0-517-88440-2, pp.281,362, respectively:

[...]"Today his discovery maybe expressed as follows: physical space and
the ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are
physical states of space. For if no particular state of motion can be
ascribed to the ether, there does not seem to be any ground for
introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside of space. But
the physicists were still far removed form such a way of thinking; space
was still, for them, a rigid, homogenous something, incapable of
changing or assuming various states."

[...]"But it must now be remembered that there is and infinite number of
spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of
space as something existing objectively and independent of things
belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence
of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This
latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having
played a considerable role even in scientific thought."

The above two passages, when taken together in their common context,
yield the unavoidable conclusion that "There is an infinite number of
ethers, which are in motion with respect to each other".

IOW, Einstein's double statement "there is an infinite number of spaces"
and "space and ether are just different terms for the same thing" is
logically equivalent to "there is an infinite number of ethers(spaces)".

Though he didn't actually write down this statement, he certainly did
make that statement loud and clear, it being the heart and soul of both
of the articles from which these passages were extracted. I suppose the
reason that he never stated it using the term "ethers" was that the word
"spaces" was less ambiguous, more exact, and besides the use of the word
"ether" in that statement might have been wrongly assumed without
further clarification to indicate the "luminiferous ether", a concept
that he was in fact attempting to discount with these two arguments.

Richard Perry



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


Harald

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In .com
James wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

James wrote:
. . . You can call me fool, or liar, to your hearts
content but it adds nothing to your argument.

O'Barr comments:
You are right.
I was wrong to have said such things. What I
really should have said was that your thinking was
incorrect. Sorry that I am not better at such
things.
Thanks for correcting me in such a kind way!

James wrote:
You claimed LET is superior to SR because it
can explain WHY the local measurement for light is
always c. To do this you must invoke an ether. An
ether which you claim is real.

O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Might you also be able to see
some of your own biases?
The ether is not used just to explain why c is a
measured constant. The ether is first of all used so
that the speed of light could have a fixed absolute
velocity at all points in space. There does have to
be something everywhere in space to cause this to
happen. Otherwise, the velocity of light could not be
independent of its sources, etc.
And second: The ether is used to cause the rates
of clocks to vary with their velocities, at all
points in space. And this is not just an assumption.
The rate of a light clock will produce the exact math
function that is required, exactly, automatically!
And so if one clock works this way, why not all
clocks? We have never seen one clock be different
than another as far as their basic functions work.
There does have to be something, at all points in
space, to cause these things to happen.
And third, there has to be something to cause the
length of rulers to change with their velocities.
And again, this is not just an assumption! We can
take what is known about electro-magnetic properties,
and use the diameter of an equal potential sphere to
represent the changes in the lengths of rulers, and
get the exact math function needed. And there does
have to be something everywhere in space to cause
these effects.
And then 4th: We can show that the combined
effects, of a constant absolute velocity of light,
with the changes in rates of clocks as automatically
seen in a light clock, and the changes in the lengths
of rulers as automatically found in an equal
potential sphere, along with the proper syncing of
such clocks, automatically resulting in a constant
measurement of the speed of light.
And thus, at this point, we have SR math, when we
add the correct sync to the clocks being used. And
you want to call the ether as just a way to make c a
constant? All these things are a beauty to behold,
10 times more beauty than what you have in SR, and
all these independent but correlated effects that
naturally result in SR math is in itself a strong
suggestion that it is all real and is the way it is!
Everyone of these things are found to exist!
So yes, the ether is used to do what you say, but
it is not just a word. It is not just a word used to
give an explanation. It is a most complete science,
with full justification for saying what the rates of
clocks would be, for saying what the lengths of
rulers should be, and in explaining then why we can
measure the speed of light to be a constant. You
made it sound as if it was just an excuse. It is a
science, and you should be more honest in at least
saying as much as we do know about this science!
Obviously, we need to know more. But we do know
much, and the ether is not, as I said, just a word or
just an excuse!


James wrote:
Every attempt to detect a 'real' ether has ended
in failure.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
And this is all so incorrect! Can you tell me one
experiment where LET ether was tried to be detected
and it was not detected? You are saying things here
not because of any science that is known or exists,
but you are saying this to put false concepts into
people's minds!
I know what the ether is, and you will never be
able to confine it, to box it up, to weight it, to do
anything with it at all. And there is nothing in LET
that says anything like these things are possible!
So your thoughts up above are unscientific, and I
expect to hear from you a retraction!

James wrote:
"If you use a false premis [the ether exists in
nature] to explain WHY something 'IS' [why the local
speed of light is always measured to be c] your
explanation is false." Your conclusion that the
'ether exists in nature' because it has never been
shown to not exist IS unscientific. Fools logic.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, if a false premise were used, any explanation
based upon a false premise would normally be assumed
to be false. The question, however, that is being
addressed, is the premise false or not?
To determine if a premise or a theory is false or
not, is the purpose of science, and scientific
testing. So what test has been made to falsify LET?
Until this science has been accomplished, then
scientists should not go around and say that there
cannot be an ether.
It is not just this, but the ether, producing the
exact same math as SR, means that the LET ether is
just as well established, scientifically, as SR. In
fact, considering all the other things that LET can
do that SR cannot do, such as provide us real
physical understanding of what is really happening,
and doing all this in a simpler 3-D setting, we find
that LET is far superior to SR.
Also adding to LET favor, LET provides for us full
and complete causes and effects, it is a doable
approach, with the simplest of kinematics, with no
breaks in symmetry, no jumps in time, with no
physically impossible 4-D spacetime continuums, etc.
In fact, in every way possible, LET is completely
superior to SR. The only advantage that SR has is
that it, being just math, might be easier to use, and
it might have one less step in deriving it. But LET
does not prevent anyone from using SR math, since it
is the same. So there really is not one thing lost
by using LET. It is all gain!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Gerald
If LET makes the exact same predictions, wrt physical phenomena, that
SR makes then LET hasn't been falsified as a theory. The discussion
wasn't whether LET has been falsified as a theory. It was whether LET
is superior to SR for doing science. Your argument is LET explains WHY
certain physical phenomena [I won't list them] is observed. To do this
you must invoke the ether but the ether has never been observed as
physical phenomena. Subsequently it is only a theoretical construct,
much the same as 'curved spacetime'. LET doesn't explain WHY we observe
physical phenomena any more than any other theoretical model. It may be
useful for making theoretical predictions which can be tested
empirically but it doesn't explain WHY the local speed of light is
always measured to be c [or any of the other WHY's for physical
phenomena you've mentioned]. Now maybe if the ether is actually
observed as physical phenomena...? You might actually have a real
argument.

James

RP wrote:
Harry wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
...


Harry wrote:


"RP" wrote in message
...

SNIP

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".

I don't recall that. And in what article did Einstein state that? I like to
see the context.
Thanks in advance!

Ok, you've forced me to research the literature. The results are
in....and in my favor

Good!

From "Ideas and Opinions" ISBN 0-517-88440-2, pp.281,362, respectively:

[...]"Today his discovery maybe expressed as follows: physical space and
the ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are
physical states of space. For if no particular state of motion can be
ascribed to the ether, there does not seem to be any ground for
introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside of space. But
the physicists were still far removed form such a way of thinking; space
was still, for them, a rigid, homogenous something, incapable of
changing or assuming various states."

[...]"But it must now be remembered that there is and infinite number of
spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of
space as something existing objectively and independent of things
belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence
of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This
latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having
played a considerable role even in scientific thought."

The above two passages, when taken together in their common context,
yield the unavoidable conclusion that "There is an infinite number of
ethers, which are in motion with respect to each other".

Right. IMO that passage isn't favourable for his image...

IOW, Einstein's double statement "there is an infinite number of spaces"
and "space and ether are just different terms for the same thing" is
logically equivalent to "there is an infinite number of ethers(spaces)".

Though he didn't actually write down this statement, he certainly did
make that statement loud and clear, it being the heart and soul of both
of the articles from which these passages were extracted. I suppose the
reason that he never stated it using the term "ethers" was that the word
"spaces" was less ambiguous, more exact, and besides the use of the word
"ether" in that statement might have been wrongly assumed without
further clarification to indicate the "luminiferous ether", a concept
that he was in fact attempting to discount with these two arguments.

Sure, I also agree that it was good to avoid that to avoid
misunderstandning. In no way, however, did he discount Lorentz'ether /
absolute space concept with those words. Quite to the contrary, when in
this news group someone concluded that Einstein's interpretation boils
down to everyone having a personal ether, that was met with disregard.
Still, as Einstein himself stated, it's the logical consequence of his
own interpretation.

Thanks for the citation.

Harald

Richard Perry



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

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


deletes by O'Barr
(I deleted some very important statements throughout
this post, but that is O.K. Those that were suppose
to see these comments did see them.)

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote: . . .
Thanks for correcting me in such a kind way!

more deletes by O'Barr

James wrote:
If LET makes the exact same predictions, wrt
physical phenomena, that SR makes then LET hasn't
been falsified as a theory.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
This is correct. In terms of the math, SR and LET
have the identical math, and thus their math predicts
the exact same math answers. The interpretations of
what the answers actually mean are, of course,
different. But having the correct answers is the
same. Thus, on a scientific basis, you cannot
falsify LET without at the same time falsifying SR.
And you cannot support SR without also supporting
LET. This is one of the most interesting facts of
science that has ever existed, that two theories that
appear to be so opposite, are really the same theory!
And yet the SR experts will not allow such facts to
be presented and discussed and understood!
As said, the problem comes in that SR experts are
not generally willing to agree to these things. They
do not allow such a statement to be made in the FAQ.
They do not address this fact in the literature,
although one reference was given where such a
statement was made at one time.
So it is unscientific to teach people that SR
proves that there cannot be an absolute reference
frame. The fact that it can be ignored is not proof
that it is not there. And it is unscientific for
people to say there is no ether. What tests have
shown is that there is, so far, no ether that
produces the effects of a mechanical wind pressure
that can be separated from gravity or electrical
effects, etc. And there is no absolute space where
rulers and clocks are unaffected by their motions in
space. These things can be shown. But the ether
used in LET cannot be disproved to exist, and will
never be disproved as long as SR is correct.


James wrote:
The discussion wasn't whether LET has been falsified
as a theory. It was whether LET is superior to SR
for doing science.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Obviously, it might depend on what research you
are doing. If you are doing SR research, you are not
likely to be doing much to find an ether. LET would
be superior if your research was to find the ether,
or properties of the ether, etc.
In those research areas where you are only testing
the math results, and trying to find limits, it does
not matter which theory you might use. But to know
where to really expect your actual limits, then LET
might give you a better understanding of where these
limits might be.
What you need to know is that using LET will never
hurt your efforts. All the math and math symmetries
are there in LET, everything you have in SR is
contained in LET or in LET math. And the physical
base to LET can give you better limitations to guide
you than SR alone.

James wrote:
Your argument is LET explains WHY certain physical
phenomena [I won't list them] is observed. To do
this you must invoke the ether but the ether has
never been observed as physical phenomena.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Your choices of words seem so interesting. The
ether was not observed as it was expected to be
observed. Is this what you wanted to say? We did
not find the ether blowing things over, or
mechanically moving things around. Is this what you
wanted to say?
But the effects of the ether are seen everywhere!
Every photon that moves away from a source at the
identical velocity, no matter at what changes in
velocity of the source moves, is an effect of the
ether that is directly observed at all points in free
space. The fact that moving clocks slow down, at the
specific rate of a light clock; and the fact that
lengths change, at the exact rate calculated in LET;
makes the effects of the ether to be obvious. And
the measuring of the velocity of light to be c is a
direct effect of the ether. Thus, the effects of the
ether are everywhere, exactly as expected and
demanded by the theory! It cannot be seen more
directly than this!

James wrote:
Subsequently it is only a theoretical construct,
much the same as 'curved spacetime'.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
I am sorry! This is not true! LET is a physical
theory, where the physical acts of physical objects
are scientifically specified, and then the results of
these acts are analyzed and properly put together to
form a math relationship. Thus, when the math is
finally achieved, the physical reasons why the math
works is clearly and specifically given, and it is
the physical base that then defines the math, gives
or established the limits to the math, and allows
anyone to understand what is physically happening so
that the math answers can be correct applied and
understood.
In SR, you start only with math (c is a math
constant, and math equations must maintain a common
form), and you end with math. At no time can you
really tell what really physically happens, and what
real limits might exist in the math, or what the math
really means, other than it is what will be measured
if you use certain tools in a certain way.


James wrote:
... LET doesn't explain WHY we observe physical
phenomena any more than any other theoretical model.

O'Barr comments:
It is true that for all theories we have so far,
all have an end to their explanations, and a point
where further explanations will be necessary. But
when you are comparing different theories, it is
unimportant that all theories have such a common end.
What is important, is which theory takes us the
furtherest along the way! LET is a deeper based
theory than SR, providing to use one step lower into
our reality than SR. And thus, LET is superior to
SR!

James wrote:
It may be useful for making theoretical predictions
which can be tested empirically but it doesn't
explain WHY the local speed of light is always
measured to be c [or any of the other WHY's for
physical phenomena you've mentioned].

O'Barr comments:
The very reason why anyone believes in the ether
is because it does tell us why c is a measured
constant. First of all, it tells us how and why c is
always an absolute constant, something that must be
in order that all these correlations can exist, and
then LET explains step by step why this absolute
constant can be measured to be a constant in
different moving inertial frames. How did you miss
all this?

James wrote:
Now maybe if the ether is actually observed as
physical phenomena...? You might actually have a
real argument.

O'Barr comments:
Well, certainly, if you could put some ether into
a bottle, and compress it, and weigh it, and check
its color, we would not be having this argument. But
you are being unscientific in this point unless by
theory you show that LET requires its ether to be
physically observed in some way, and then you can
show that it is not seen the way the theory says.
Until you do this, you are being unscientific.
The ether and/or its direct effects are seen in
every way required by the theory. And thus it is
unscientific not to accept the ether as being a
viable theory. QED!
And you are not unscientific, are you?


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

wrote in message
oups.com...
Gerald
No everybody doesn't know that there appears to be paradox in
relativity There are no paradox in relativity regardless of books
you've read. If you think your misunderstanding of the theory,
constitutes a problem for the theory, you are mistaken.

I'll translate it to you with slightly polarised words:

- Almost everyone here rejects Einstein's explanation of what he called the
Twin Paradox (one likely exception : Ken Tucker).
- O'Barr isn't offended by SRT as defined in physics but by Einstein's
explanation of it, and he *defends* SRT by showing that there is no such
paradox with Lorentz's explanation (neither the one below nor the one of
Einstein) .

You said:
SNIP
"This is all logically impossible! It has to be in
error, in terms of what is actually happening. You
cannot really change your velocity towards something,
and not really have a change! In SR, this is a
paradox! It is just impossible for it to have
actually happened, yet you measured it as having
happened! "

It's not impossible because it IS a FACT of NATURE. You only think it
is impossible based on preconception.

That's what is meant with "paradox"...

It is a verifiable fact of nature.

FYI, O'Barr fully agrees with what will be observed.
Here's another one for you: it's an observable fact of nature that when you
look at me at a distance through a magnifying flass, you observe me as
upside down and shrunk. But it's not observable that I *really* shrunk, nor
does it make sense to say so! ;-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

I did not prove your point. Your point is from your perspective 'it is
impossible'. There is no ether [this is a fact of nature].

Actually, since the magnifying glass here is causal as is the ether, "there
is no ether" is also certainly *not* a "fact of nature"...

If you use a
false premis to explain why something 'is' your explanation is false.
If you postulate something [ether] to construct a theory which makes
verifiable predictions then that can become a useful scientific tool.
Now lets ask the question which theory is actually used in scientific
research, SR or LET? If LET was more useful than SR it would be used
[regardless of what Harald thinks].

Assuming that with "LET" you mean Lorentz' explanation of SRT, what do you
think is the difference for use?

Cheers,
Harald

Harry wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Gerald
No everybody doesn't know that there appears to be paradox in
relativity There are no paradox in relativity regardless of books
you've read. If you think your misunderstanding of the theory,
constitutes a problem for the theory, you are mistaken.

I'll translate it to you with slightly polarised words:

I don't need your translation.

- Almost everyone here rejects Einstein's explanation of what he called the
Twin Paradox (one likely exception : Ken Tucker).
- O'Barr isn't offended by SRT as defined in physics but by Einstein's
explanation of it, and he *defends* SRT by showing that there is no such
paradox with Lorentz's explanation (neither the one below nor the one of
Einstein) .

Speak for yourself.

You said:
SNIP
"This is all logically impossible! It has to be in
error, in terms of what is actually happening. You
cannot really change your velocity towards something,
and not really have a change! In SR, this is a
paradox! It is just impossible for it to have
actually happened, yet you measured it as having
happened! "

It's not impossible because it IS a FACT of NATURE. You only think it
is impossible based on preconception.

That's what is meant with "paradox"...

It is a verifiable fact of nature.

FYI, O'Barr fully agrees with what will be observed.
Here's another one for you: it's an observable fact of nature that when you
look at me at a distance through a magnifying flass, you observe me as
upside down and shrunk. But it's not observable that I *really* shrunk, nor
does it make sense to say so! ;-)

Gerald can speak for himself harald.

wrote in message
oups.com...

I did not prove your point. Your point is from your perspective 'it is
impossible'. There is no ether [this is a fact of nature].

Actually, since the magnifying glass here is causal as is the ether, "there
is no ether" is also certainly *not* a "fact of nature"...

It certainly is a fact of nature that there is no ether. We can
experimentally verify the magnifying glass, and all its properties,
actually exist in nature while we can't experimentally verify the
ether, or any of the properties which you want to attribute to it,
actually exists in nature. For the ether to qualify as a fact of nature
it would need to be experimentally verified to exist in nature.


If you use a
false premis to explain why something 'is' your explanation is false.
If you postulate something [ether] to construct a theory which makes
verifiable predictions then that can become a useful scientific tool.
Now lets ask the question which theory is actually used in scientific
research, SR or LET? If LET was more useful than SR it would be used
[regardless of what Harald thinks].

Assuming that with "LET" you mean Lorentz' explanation of SRT, what do you
think is the difference for use?

When SR is used to do all the local physics in GR it is an advantage
not to clutter the physics up with archaic concepts such as absolute
frames of reference.

Cheers,
Harald

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


deletes by O'Barr
(I deleted some very important statements throughout
this post, but that is O.K. Those that were suppose
to see these comments did see them.)

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote: . . .
Thanks for correcting me in such a kind way!

more deletes by O'Barr

James wrote:
If LET makes the exact same predictions, wrt
physical phenomena, that SR makes then LET hasn't
been falsified as a theory.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
This is correct. In terms of the math, SR and LET
have the identical math, and thus their math predicts
the exact same math answers. The interpretations of
what the answers actually mean are, of course,
different. But having the correct answers is the
same. Thus, on a scientific basis, you cannot
falsify LET without at the same time falsifying SR.
And you cannot support SR without also supporting
LET. This is one of the most interesting facts of
science that has ever existed, that two theories that
appear to be so opposite, are really the same theory!
And yet the SR experts will not allow such facts to
be presented and discussed and understood!
As said, the problem comes in that SR experts are
not generally willing to agree to these things. They
do not allow such a statement to be made in the FAQ.
They do not address this fact in the literature,
although one reference was given where such a
statement was made at one time.
So it is unscientific to teach people that SR
proves that there cannot be an absolute reference
frame. The fact that it can be ignored is not proof
that it is not there. And it is unscientific for
people to say there is no ether. What tests have
shown is that there is, so far, no ether that
produces the effects of a mechanical wind pressure
that can be separated from gravity or electrical
effects, etc. And there is no absolute space where
rulers and clocks are unaffected by their motions in
space. These things can be shown. But the ether
used in LET cannot be disproved to exist, and will
never be disproved as long as SR is correct.

Within the context of relativity, SR and GR, there are no absolute
reference frames. So when teaching the theory it makes sense to state
this. What tests have been conducted which show that the ether, and or
an absolute frame of reference exist?


James wrote:
The discussion wasn't whether LET has been falsified
as a theory. It was whether LET is superior to SR
for doing science.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Obviously, it might depend on what research you
are doing. If you are doing SR research, you are not
likely to be doing much to find an ether. LET would
be superior if your research was to find the ether,
or properties of the ether, etc.
In those research areas where you are only testing
the math results, and trying to find limits, it does
not matter which theory you might use. But to know
where to really expect your actual limits, then LET
might give you a better understanding of where these
limits might be.
What you need to know is that using LET will never
hurt your efforts. All the math and math symmetries
are there in LET, everything you have in SR is
contained in LET or in LET math. And the physical
base to LET can give you better limitations to guide
you than SR alone.

James wrote:
Your argument is LET explains WHY certain physical
phenomena [I won't list them] is observed. To do
this you must invoke the ether but the ether has
never been observed as physical phenomena.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Your choices of words seem so interesting. The
ether was not observed as it was expected to be
observed. Is this what you wanted to say?

What I wanted to say I actually wrote.
Once again: Your argument for WHY certain physical phenomena occur, in
nature, is because there is an ether. My argument is that you can't
explain why physical phenomena occur based on a experimentally
unverified theoretical construct. You can predict what will be observed
but not WHY it is observed. It's obvious that we are going to have a
different opinion so I'll conclude by saying its been a pleasure.

Janes

not find the ether blowing things over, or
mechanically moving things around. Is this what you
wanted to say?
But the effects of the ether are seen everywhere!
Every photon that moves away from a source at the
identical velocity, no matter at what changes in
velocity of the source moves, is an effect of the
ether that is directly observed at all points in free
space. The fact that moving clocks slow down, at the
specific rate of a light clock; and the fact that
lengths change, at the exact rate calculated in LET;
makes the effects of the ether to be obvious. And
the measuring of the velocity of light to be c is a
direct effect of the ether. Thus, the effects of the
ether are everywhere, exactly as expected and
demanded by the theory! It cannot be seen more
directly than this!

James wrote:
Subsequently it is only a theoretical construct,
much the same as 'curved spacetime'.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
I am sorry! This is not true! LET is a physical
theory, where the physical acts of physical objects
are scientifically specified, and then the results of
these acts are analyzed and properly put together to
form a math relationship. Thus, when the math is
finally achieved, the physical reasons why the math
works is clearly and specifically given, and it is
the physical base that then defines the math, gives
or established the limits to the math, and allows
anyone to understand what is physically happening so
that the math answers can be correct applied and
understood.
In SR, you start only with math (c is a math
constant, and math equations must maintain a common
form), and you end with math. At no time can you
really tell what really physically happens, and what
real limits might exist in the math, or what the math
really means, other than it is what will be measured
if you use certain tools in a certain way.


James wrote:
... LET doesn't explain WHY we observe physical
phenomena any more than any other theoretical model.

O'Barr comments:
It is true that for all theories we have so far,
all have an end to their explanations, and a point
where further explanations will be necessary. But
when you are comparing different theories, it is
unimportant that all theories have such a common end.
What is important, is which theory takes us the
furtherest along the way! LET is a deeper based
theory than SR, providing to use one step lower into
our reality than SR. And thus, LET is superior to
SR!

James wrote:
It may be useful for making theoretical predictions
which can be tested empirically but it doesn't
explain WHY the local speed of light is always
measured to be c [or any of the other WHY's for
physical phenomena you've mentioned].

O'Barr comments:
The very reason why anyone believes in the ether
is because it does tell us why c is a measured
constant. First of all, it tells us how and why c is
always an absolute constant, something that must be
in order that all these correlations can exist, and
then LET explains step by step why this absolute
constant can be measured to be a constant in
different moving inertial frames. How did you miss
all this?

James wrote:
Now maybe if the ether is actually observed as
physical phenomena...? You might actually have a
real argument.

O'Barr comments:
Well, certainly, if you could put some ether into
a bottle, and compress it, and weigh it, and check
its color, we would not be having this argument. But
you are being unscientific in this point unless by
theory you show that LET requires its ether to be
physically observed in some way, and then you can
show that it is not seen the way the theory says.
Until you do this, you are being unscientific.
The ether and/or its direct effects are seen in
every way required by the theory. And thus it is
unscientific not to accept the ether as being a
viable theory. QED!
And you are not unscientific, are you?


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

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

deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
... it is unscientific to teach people that SR
proves that there cannot be an absolute reference
frame. The fact that it can be ignored is not
proof
that it is not there. And it is unscientific for
people to say there is no ether. What tests have
shown is that there is, so far, no ether that
produces the effects of a mechanical wind pressure
that can be separated from gravity or electrical
effects, etc. And there is no absolute space
where rulers and clocks are unaffected by their
motions in space. These things can be shown. But
the ether used in LET cannot be disproved to
exist, and will never be disproved as long as SR
is correct.

James wrote:
Within the context of relativity, SR and GR, there
are no absolute reference frames. So when teaching
the theory it makes sense to state this.

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
In a limited way, every word you said above is
correct. SR and GR do not directly use an absolute
reference frame. And it is required that this be
stated if you are going to teach these theories. But
the error is in the science! All physical theories
should be presented and taught as they presently
stand within the known science. And a good college
professor will be sure to do this, usually at the
introduction of the course. And the known science
includes LET. Thus, when SR and GR are taught
without the correct science, where these stupid
professors say such things that SR proved that all
ether theories were wrong, they lie! When they say
such things that SR or GR could not work if there
were an absolute reference frame, they lie.
And I see that you yourself have not been too
careful here to say things as they should be said
scientifically. Why is that? Why are you so afraid
to simple say what we presently know?

James wrote:
What tests have been conducted which show that the
ether, and or an absolute frame of reference exist?

O'Barr comments:
Scientifically, if every test made shows a theory
makes correct predictions, within its error of
margin, then these tests show that that theory is an
acceptable or a correct theory. And therefore, for
too many repeats here to be justified, every test
that has shown SR to be correct, also affirms the
correctness of there being an ether! QED!
Again, why are you being so dense? Why are you
unwilling to even say what any correct thinking
person would say? Why are you being this way? Don't
you want to be scientific?

deletes by O'Barr


Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Your choices of words seem so interesting. The
ether was not observed as it was expected to be
observed. Is this what you wanted to say?

James wrote:
What I wanted to say I actually wrote.
Once again: Your argument for WHY certain physical
phenomena occur, in nature, is because there is an
ether.

O'Barr comments:
Ether or no ether, there is in LET the use of
simple 3-D. This is no minor part to the theory. No
one has to have an ether in order to have a 3-D
approach, do they? And in the LET approach, there
are absolute things, like an absolute rest frame. Do
you really have to have an ether in order to have an
absolute rest frame concept? And in the LET theory
you use simple addition of velocities. Do you have
to have an ether in order to have simple addition of
velocities?
For some reason, you seem to be unable to
understand that this theory is a theory that includes
real objects, to include clocks and rulers, and it
includes their rates and their lengths, and the exact
E&M that is know to exist. So the theory is a very
deep and a very complete theory, and the ether is
just one part of the theory. It helps to bring about
certain important inter-relationships. But you
really could remove the ether, and keep the
kinematics by assumption, and get the exact same
thing.
The ether, as an actual medium, is there only
because we are use to saying that it is there, not
that its actual properties are used at all. It is
the power of the kinematics that makes LET superior
to SR, and you need to come to understand this
problem much better if you are going to be
scientific.

James wrote:
My argument is that you can't explain why physical
phenomena occur based on a experimentally
unverified theoretical construct. You can predict
what will be observed but not WHY it is observed.
It's obvious that we are going to have a
different opinion so I'll conclude by saying its
been a pleasure.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
When two people are being scientific, there is
little room for disagreements. That is why science
is successful, there is most often only one
conclusion that can be agreed upon when there is good
science that is present.
As was answered, LET is superior because it does
answer questions that is not possible for SR to
answer. LET is one level deeper than SR. Sure, LET
has questions, just like SR, that it cannot yet
answer. But you have no scientific right to ignore
this fact that LET is able to answer deeper questions
than SR. And this is all that is necessary to make
LET superior to SR. There cannot be any difference
of opinion on any of these issues! QED.

O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
... the effects of the ether are seen everywhere!
Every photon that moves away from a source at the
identical velocity, no matter at what changes in
velocity of the source moves, is an effect of the
ether that is directly observed at all points in
free space. The fact that moving clocks slow down,
at the specific rate of a light clock; and the fact
that lengths change, at the exact rate calculated
in LET; makes the effects of the ether to be
obvious. And the measuring of the velocity of
light to be c is a direct effect of the ether.
Thus, the effects of the
ether are everywhere, exactly as expected and
demanded by the theory! It cannot be seen more
directly than this!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . . LET is a physical
theory, where the physical acts of physical
objects are scientifically specified, and then the
results of these acts are analyzed and properly
put together to
form a math relationship. Thus, when the math is
finally achieved, the physical reasons why the
math works is clearly and specifically given, and
it is the physical base that then defines the
math, gives or established the limits to the math,
and allows anyone to understand what is physically
happening so that the math answers can be correct
applied and understood.


O'Barr wrote:
. . . .
What is important, is which theory takes us the
furtherest along the way! LET is a deeper based
theory than SR, providing to use one step lower
into our reality than SR. And thus, LET is
superior to SR!

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

Harry wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Gerald
No everybody doesn't know that there appears to be paradox in
relativity There are no paradox in relativity regardless of books
you've read. If you think your misunderstanding of the theory,
constitutes a problem for the theory, you are mistaken.

I'll translate it to you with slightly polarised words:

- Almost everyone here rejects Einstein's explanation of what he called the
Twin Paradox (one likely exception : Ken Tucker).

Yup, thanks Harry, I think GR is needed to explain
why clocks become asynchonized because a bit of
relative acceleration is required.

If two clocks t and s are synchronized then

dt/ds = constant ,

and then the change in that constant is zero,

d/ds (dt/ds) = 0 == synchronized

What GR does is to define when

d/ds (dt/ds) =/=0 == asynchronization,

which requires some form of change in the relative
energy of clocks t and s, which is quite simple to
imagine, but somewhat difficult to write in equations.
Like it's easy to imagine carrying a clock up a flight
of stairs, well you guy's know...
Ken