Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
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!

Which stupid proffessors are these?

When they say
such things that SR or GR could not work if there
were an absolute reference frame, they lie.

Within the context of relativity [SR and GR] there are no absolute
frames of reference. You seem to want the stupid professors to mix up
different theories.

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?

I'm more scientific than you gerald. I can, at the least, differentiate
between theories.

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.

All it means is the theory has made correct predictions with respect to
observed natural phenomena. LET making correct predictions wrt observed
natural phenomena doesn't confirm the physical existence of the ether
any more than GR making predictions wrt observed natural phenomena
confirms the physical existence of curved spacetime.

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?

Actually you, gerald, are being dense. You actually believe theoretical
models confirm the physical existence of theoretical constucts without
real direct experimental evidence. Get a clue. You really don't
understand the purpose of theoretical models.

[Snip the rest of geralds inane comments].

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

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Thanks for responding. For a minute, I thought
you were going to leave.

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. . . . .

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!

James wrote:
Which stupid proffessors are these?

O'Barr comments:
I do not mind repeating what I said: Any
professor or any thinking person who says that our
present-day science does not allow there to be an
absolute reference frame, or an ether, is not being
scientific. LET, right this very minute, is a viable
theory, and it does not and it cannot allow any
thinking person to say that our reality cannot be
exactly as LET requires things to be! This is what
our present-day science does for us, whether you want
to admit it or not! This is not anything to do with
what I think or what I want! This is what our
science presently shows!

O'Barr wrote:
When they say
such things that SR or GR could not work if there
were an absolute reference frame, they lie.

James wrote:
Within the context of relativity [SR and GR] there
are no absolute frames of reference. You seem to
want the stupid professors to mix up different
theories.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely not! What I want everyone to do is to
properly understand SR and GR. SR and GR are not
based upon any point that requires no absolute. And
LET explains all this!
It is like someone saying that F = ma, and so if
we find F = ma, then that proves there is no gravity
because there is no gravity in F = ma. Don't you see
that just because a theory does not use the absolute
(or does not use gravity), then just because it is
true (correct), then you cannot say that it proves
there is no absolute (or no gravity.) Until you can
show that LET is not correct, you cannot say that SR
or GR proves there is no absolute. There is nothing
that allows you to say such things! You do not
understand the limitations that exist in SR and in GR
because of LET.

O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
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:
I'm more scientific than you gerald. I can, at the
least, differentiate between theories.

O'Barr comments:
Good for you. Just be sure that in all the
differentiations that are made, that you to not
ascribe to any theory more than what it can actually
say or do for us!

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

O'Barr wrote:
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.

James wrote:
All it means is the theory has made correct
predictions with respect to observed natural
phenomena. LET making correct predictions wrt
observed natural phenomena doesn't confirm the
physical existence of the ether any more than GR
making predictions wrt observed natural phenomena
confirms the physical existence of curved spacetime.

O'Barr comments:
You are talking about some very important points.
What we need to know and to understand is that not
all theories are equal. Not all theories are the
same, either in terms of their power, or their scope,
or their base, or their relationship to other
theories.
Take PV = nRT! No thinking person can say that
this theory is just a made up theory that just might
be accidentally making correct predictions! To do
this would be insane! This theory, because of the
way it is, and the number of correlations that exist,
and independent confirmations, cannot be questioned
in its basic assumptions. Some theories are able to
be this way. And so, when SR is only math, but LET
is a physically based theory, there are problems if
you try to say that they both have the same problems!
You are wrong to ignore their important differences!
I am not saying that LET is as strong as the
kinetic theory of gases. But what has to be clearly
seen is that LET is far more firm than SR has even
been, because it has the physical background that it
has, upon which the math is based. And this physical
background gives many positive correlations that will
never be found in SR.

O'Barr comments:
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?

James wrote:
Actually you, gerald, are being dense. You actually
believe theoretical models confirm the physical
existence of theoretical constucts without real
direct experimental evidence. Get a clue. You really
don't understand the purpose of theoretical models.

[Snip the rest of geralds inane comments].

O'Barr comments:
When all you have is only a math theory, such as
what we have with SR and/or GR, then of course you
have no power at all to say anything about what might
actually physically exist. And thus, to make your
religion look better, you try to say that science can
never tell us things about actual reality. But that
is a lie! Physics exists for the purpose of finding
out what our reality really is! And we are going to
do this. Even though this belief in SR and GR will
someday be seen as the dark ages of our science, we
will rise above all this, and we will come to know
and to understand what our physical reality is all
about.
LET like concepts will be the correct direction
for us to go, and we will be forced to accept an
absolute reference frame type of physics before we
can go much further. The hand writing is now on the
wall, and we all know this. And we will do these
very things, exactly as we are now allowed to do them
by our present science! I am sorry that you missed
all this!

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

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

Ken, thanks for the confirmation. Although we disagree on the solution,
apparently we agree with Einstein on the problem!
But I'm not sure that you fully accept Einstein's "real induced
gravitational fields".

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,

I don't think that it really works, as there is a timing problem from those
"induced gravitational fields"

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

Cheers,
Harald

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you needed it, as you show not to understand
anything of his 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) .

Speak for yourself.

Fine, but as it doesn't seem that you understood the above, it likely won't
help:

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

- I think that SRT as defined in physics is quite neat, and with Lorentz's
explanation there is no paradox in the problem below nor in Einstein's 1905
clock calculation) .

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.

Sure he can and he does vanep, but did you now understand it?

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.

You missed the point: we can only indirectly verify the existence of the
magnifying glass from its effects by its causal properties.
Similarly was the case with atoms, even one century ago. Thus for you "there
were no atoms" until they were visualised by cameras?
That's very uncommon English.

For the ether to qualify as a fact of nature
it would need to be experimentally verified to exist in nature.

I agree: an entity that can only indirectly be verified to exist (for
example an electric field), is not a fact of nature. But to positively state
the inverse is faulty logic.

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.

There is no need for it in calculations, everyone agrees on that; in fact
everyone knows that since the time that Newton explained that! Thus there is
no difference in use, regardless of what vanep thinks.

Harald

Harry wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

Ken, thanks for the confirmation. Although we disagree on the solution,
apparently we agree with Einstein on the problem!
But I'm not sure that you fully accept Einstein's "real induced
gravitational fields".

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,

I don't think that it really works, as there is a timing problem from those
"induced gravitational fields"

It goes well with Planck's constant

"h" ~ 6.625*10^-27 ergs*secs.

h = e*s = E*t

which is the same in all CS's. If s/t changes
the e/E changes, so there is a required change
in relative energy.

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

Cheers,
Harald

Cheers

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
In .com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
SNIP
wrote:
That's rich -- if a paradox can be imagined, the
theory is shot down.

O'Barr comments:
Right! And since in SR, there are imagined
paradoxes everywhere, and in LET, there are not any
imagined paradoxes, then we have an easy choice to
make! It is clear as to which theory is the superior
theory!

I realise that a precision is at its place:
Of course in every theory paradoxes appear when the theory isn't understood.
For example people who think that Lorentz's explanation of "length
contraction" only is about how objects deform, will find apparent mutual
contraction paradoxical. However, with such "light" paradoxes, things become
crystal clear as soon as the full explanation is understood.
Obviously here is talk of the types of paradoxes where people even after
they understood the proposed explanations, are left with the feeling that
they are being fooled.

Cheers,
Harald