"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
ups.com...
The physical motions of photons in free space
are absolutely equal!

Yes, let us take a fixed inertial line in free
space, and let points A and B be fixed points upon
this line. At point A, let there be two objects
moving upon this line at two different velocities,
positioned such that they will cross point A at the
same instant of time. At the instant they cross
point A, let them both send a photon towards point B.
Both photons will physically reach point B at the
same instant of time.
(Sub note: Each 'object' that simultaneously met at
point A can each actually represent a whole inertial
reference frame, in which they are each at rest. And
we will let each frame extend to both points A and B
and beyond. Thus, each photon emitted by each
object are each traveling in their own different inertial
reference frame at all times.)
Now please note, at any point on this original
line, as measured by any object on this line, no
matter what velocity any object might be moving on
this line, will show that at any meeting of any one
of these photons, will instantaneously include the
meeting of the other photon. Thus, step by step, at
every point, by all observers (by all inertial
frames), moving or not moving one way or the other,
they will all confirm that these two photons, sent by
two differently moving objects, moving in different
reference frames, will be physically moving together
in an absolute way across the space they are using.

Thus, something exists in this space, that
controls the rate at which all photons physically
move, no matter what their original source might have
been, and no matter what reference frame they are in.

Upto here, both Lorentz and Einstein would have agreed.

This concept is absolute, and it absolutely
tells us that there is an absolute reference that
controls these physical acts.

This is where Einstein disagreed, but AFAIK he didn't explain his reasoning.
Is there someone here who is able to explain Einstein's reasoning on this?

There is no logic that
exists that can defeat this concept. LET satisfies
this logic, and it is the only presently existing
science that accomplishes or satisfies this logic.
QED!

Now I do not wish to argue this point with one
single soul! There is nothing at all to argue. All
photons do physically move together, no matter what
velocity existed in their original frame of origin,
and they cannot do this unless they each are being
affected by something common.
It is my opinion that all SR experts are insane,
because they refuse to consider physical facts.

As I told you before, a number of respected SR experts *presented* such
physical facts and argued their logical conclusion to the scientific
community in highly esteemed journals.

Harald

To
assume that only math facts are important is insane,
and I no longer care to talk to SR experts. There is
no reason to ever talk to people who are insane, and
refuse to consider that a physical reality, and the
physical facts of that reality, must be known and
understood before any math fact can be considered or
used or understood.
You SR experts seem to enjoy your stupidity. So
be it! But you have all died. You have all died as
to things that have intellectual importance! And I
no longer care! Not one of you will dare consider
any of these things, and for this, you are more than
stupid! You are insane.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Harry wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
ups.com...
The physical motions of photons in free space
are absolutely equal!

Yes, let us take a fixed inertial line in free
space, and let points A and B be fixed points upon
this line. At point A, let there be two objects
moving upon this line at two different velocities,
positioned such that they will cross point A at the
same instant of time. At the instant they cross
point A, let them both send a photon towards point B.
Both photons will physically reach point B at the
same instant of time.
(Sub note: Each 'object' that simultaneously met at
point A can each actually represent a whole inertial
reference frame, in which they are each at rest. And
we will let each frame extend to both points A and B
and beyond. Thus, each photon emitted by each
object are each traveling in their own different inertial
reference frame at all times.)
Now please note, at any point on this original
line, as measured by any object on this line, no
matter what velocity any object might be moving on
this line, will show that at any meeting of any one
of these photons, will instantaneously include the
meeting of the other photon. Thus, step by step, at
every point, by all observers (by all inertial
frames), moving or not moving one way or the other,
they will all confirm that these two photons, sent by
two differently moving objects, moving in different
reference frames, will be physically moving together
in an absolute way across the space they are using.

Thus, something exists in this space, that
controls the rate at which all photons physically
move, no matter what their original source might have
been, and no matter what reference frame they are in.

Upto here, both Lorentz and Einstein would have agreed.

A photon is a quantum object and nobody knows what it does when it is
not being observed. All we know in SR kinematics is that its measured
speed in an inertial frame in a vacuum is the fixed number c. See
Feynman's QED for more on this.


This concept is absolute, and it absolutely
tells us that there is an absolute reference that
controls these physical acts.

This is where Einstein disagreed, but AFAIK he didn't explain his reasoning.

You're right. Einstein would not have agreed to any such thing post his
SR paper.

Is there someone here who is able to explain Einstein's reasoning on this?

Einstein made it very clear in his essays, even if SR books do not. To
Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e., inertial frame) would imply
that Nature has arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the laws of
electrodynamics are "true" in that frame only because measuring rods
and clocks are undistorted in that frame). Einstein regarded such a
possibility as a violation of his philosophic notion of the harmony of
nature and the egalitarianism of inertial frames (PoR). He also claimed
that nature does not seem to reveal any such frame in practice: Neither
the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in electrodynamics seems to
reveal that any inertial frame is any different for the invention of
the laws of physics from any other inertial frame. So, to Einstein, at
heart Nature acts to rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
Principle (locally), but not the dependence of light speed on the
source's motion. I emphasize that when I say "speed," I mean actual
measured speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.


There is no logic that
exists that can defeat this concept. LET satisfies
this logic, and it is the only presently existing
science that accomplishes or satisfies this logic.
QED!

Now I do not wish to argue this point with one
single soul! There is nothing at all to argue.

Of course there wouldn't be to a closed-minded dogmatist.

All
photons do physically move together, no matter what
velocity existed in their original frame of origin,
and they cannot do this unless they each are being
affected by something common.
It is my opinion that all SR experts are insane,
because they refuse to consider physical facts.

The Light Principle is a physical fact, as much as anything in physics
can be called a fact. It's the theory one voluntarily gives one's
allegiance to which forces a particuar interpretation of what this fact
means to an individual. This is true for all of us. You chose to bind
your soul to a luminiferous ether concept, so you necessarily get an
ether interpretation of this fact. And to you, no other interpretation
is possible. Above, I presented another interpretation of what Nature
is trying to do. I do not force Nature to satisfy my personal notions
of what is commonsensical. Furthermore, I do not require all
explanations in physics to be mechanical.


As I told you before, a number of respected SR experts *presented* such
physical facts and argued their logical conclusion to the scientific
community in highly esteemed journals.

Harald

To
assume that only math facts are important is insane,
and I no longer care to talk to SR experts. There is
no reason to ever talk to people who are insane, and
refuse to consider that a physical reality, and the
physical facts of that reality, must be known and
understood before any math fact can be considered or
used or understood.
You SR experts seem to enjoy your stupidity.


This second person script belies your true desire to address these
so-called "insane" SR experts.

So
be it! But you have all died. You have all died as
to things that have intellectual importance! And I
no longer care!

Not caring with an exclamation point?

wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
ups.com...
The physical motions of photons in free space
are absolutely equal!

Yes, let us take a fixed inertial line in free
space, and let points A and B be fixed points upon
this line. At point A, let there be two objects
moving upon this line at two different velocities,
positioned such that they will cross point A at the
same instant of time. At the instant they cross
point A, let them both send a photon towards point B.
Both photons will physically reach point B at the
same instant of time.
(Sub note: Each 'object' that simultaneously met at
point A can each actually represent a whole inertial
reference frame, in which they are each at rest. And
we will let each frame extend to both points A and B
and beyond. Thus, each photon emitted by each
object are each traveling in their own different inertial
reference frame at all times.)
Now please note, at any point on this original
line, as measured by any object on this line, no
matter what velocity any object might be moving on
this line, will show that at any meeting of any one
of these photons, will instantaneously include the
meeting of the other photon. Thus, step by step, at
every point, by all observers (by all inertial
frames), moving or not moving one way or the other,
they will all confirm that these two photons, sent by
two differently moving objects, moving in different
reference frames, will be physically moving together
in an absolute way across the space they are using.

Thus, something exists in this space, that
controls the rate at which all photons physically
move, no matter what their original source might have
been, and no matter what reference frame they are in.

Upto here, both Lorentz and Einstein would have agreed.

A photon is a quantum object and nobody knows what it does when it is
not being observed. All we know in SR kinematics is that its measured
speed in an inertial frame in a vacuum is the fixed number c. See
Feynman's QED for more on this.

Sure; nevertheless I'm pretty sure that Lorentz and Einstein would have
agreed that a photon's speed is a property of space, and not of the photon.
Perhaps Einstein even stated that, do you know if he did or not?

This concept is absolute, and it absolutely
tells us that there is an absolute reference that
controls these physical acts.

This is where Einstein disagreed, but AFAIK he didn't explain his
reasoning.

You're right. Einstein would not have agreed to any such thing post his
SR paper.

Is there someone here who is able to explain Einstein's reasoning on
this?

Einstein made it very clear in his essays, even if SR books do not. To
Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e., inertial frame) would imply
that Nature has arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the laws of
electrodynamics are "true" in that frame only because measuring rods
and clocks are undistorted in that frame). Einstein regarded such a
possibility as a violation of his philosophic notion of the harmony of
nature and the egalitarianism of inertial frames (PoR). He also claimed
that nature does not seem to reveal any such frame in practice: Neither
the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in electrodynamics seems to
reveal that any inertial frame is any different for the invention of
the laws of physics from any other inertial frame. So, to Einstein, at
heart Nature acts to rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
Principle (locally), but not the dependence of light speed on the
source's motion. I emphasize that when I say "speed," I mean actual
measured speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.

I also read all that. But what I meant, can you clarify the physical light
propagation model that Einstein had in mind? Don't forget that Einstein
believed that photons really travel from A to B, and that light speed is
dictated by space.

Harald

Harry wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
ups.com...
The physical motions of photons in free space
are absolutely equal!

Yes, let us take a fixed inertial line in free
space, and let points A and B be fixed points upon
this line. At point A, let there be two objects
moving upon this line at two different velocities,
positioned such that they will cross point A at the
same instant of time. At the instant they cross
point A, let them both send a photon towards point B.
Both photons will physically reach point B at the
same instant of time.
(Sub note: Each 'object' that simultaneously met at
point A can each actually represent a whole inertial
reference frame, in which they are each at rest. And
we will let each frame extend to both points A and B
and beyond. Thus, each photon emitted by each
object are each traveling in their own different inertial
reference frame at all times.)
Now please note, at any point on this original
line, as measured by any object on this line, no
matter what velocity any object might be moving on
this line, will show that at any meeting of any one
of these photons, will instantaneously include the
meeting of the other photon. Thus, step by step, at
every point, by all observers (by all inertial
frames), moving or not moving one way or the other,
they will all confirm that these two photons, sent by
two differently moving objects, moving in different
reference frames, will be physically moving together
in an absolute way across the space they are using.

Thus, something exists in this space, that
controls the rate at which all photons physically
move, no matter what their original source might have
been, and no matter what reference frame they are in.

Upto here, both Lorentz and Einstein would have agreed.

A photon is a quantum object and nobody knows what it does when it is
not being observed. All we know in SR kinematics is that its measured
speed in an inertial frame in a vacuum is the fixed number c. See
Feynman's QED for more on this.

Sure; nevertheless I'm pretty sure that Lorentz and Einstein would have
agreed that a photon's speed is a property of space, and not of the photon.
Perhaps Einstein even stated that, do you know if he did or not?

I haven't ever come across such a statement per se. Einstein might have
said something to that effect but with the word "space" replaced with
the word "spacetime." In any case, as far as I know, Einstein never
attempted to explain any mechanical aspect of light propagation. In
fact, he repeated claimed after 1905 that there was none to give. He
claimed that the attempt to do so (called the Mechanical Program) had
completely failed.

Einstein had a hard enought time dealing with an ontology of two
indenpendent things: particles and fields. He had as his ultimate goal
the reduction of all things to fields. So, he sure as hell didn't want
to admit to a third independent kind of thing, called ether. However,
if that "ether" was, in fact, describable in purely field-theoretic
terms (i.e., as partial differential equations), then that was OK by
him, in principle at least. But Maxwell's ether wasn't.


This concept is absolute, and it absolutely
tells us that there is an absolute reference that
controls these physical acts.

This is where Einstein disagreed, but AFAIK he didn't explain his
reasoning.

You're right. Einstein would not have agreed to any such thing post his
SR paper.

Is there someone here who is able to explain Einstein's reasoning on
this?

Einstein made it very clear in his essays, even if SR books do not. To
Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e., inertial frame) would imply
that Nature has arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the laws of
electrodynamics are "true" in that frame only because measuring rods
and clocks are undistorted in that frame). Einstein regarded such a
possibility as a violation of his philosophic notion of the harmony of
nature and the egalitarianism of inertial frames (PoR). He also claimed
that nature does not seem to reveal any such frame in practice: Neither
the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in electrodynamics seems to
reveal that any inertial frame is any different for the invention of
the laws of physics from any other inertial frame. So, to Einstein, at
heart Nature acts to rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
Principle (locally), but not the dependence of light speed on the
source's motion. I emphasize that when I say "speed," I mean actual
measured speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.

I also read all that. But what I meant, can you clarify the physical light
propagation model that Einstein had in mind?

I can't. And I don't think it can be done, for reasons I gave above.
Einstein referred to SR as a principle (as opposed to a constructive)
theory because it lacked any attempt whatsoever to provide a
hypothetical model of propagation of E&M effects. He said that SR was
the logical step away from Maxwell's mechanical ether, taking in the
practice of late ninteenth century physicists to treat the E and B
fields as irreducible to mechanical explanation. In other words, their
habit was to treat the E and B fields as described solely by the
so-called Maxwell equations and leave it at that, leaving the ether as
superfluous to calculation. If you want a model of light propagation
based on SR, see Feynman's treatment in his book QED.

I may be wrong, but I think that it was Heaviside who said, poetically,
that electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations are the same thing.

Don't forget that Einstein
believed that photons really travel from A to B, and that light speed is
dictated by space.

My only answer to that is to reply that Einstein said that the MMX null
result is strange. He knew that light was not obeying commonsense,
whatever it was really obeying.

Tom Roberts wrote:
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
Mistakes of relativity need to be corrected.

Before that is possible, these mistakes must be identified. So far,
nobody has been able to do that.

oh no, the speed of light is constant

actually not but depends on medium

oh no, than on non-locality

oh no, then on whatever entanglements

oh no, the gravity has the speed of light

actually twice the speed of light, oh no etc

then the things are traveling faster but this
just because they experience length contraction,
how convenient, nobody ever could falsify that

Yourself and O'Barr included. And
others around here too numerous to mention.


Tom Roberts

"Eric Gisse" kirjoitti viestissä
ups.com...

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Eric Gisse" kirjoitti viestissä
oups.com...
[snip]

Fix your ****ty newsreader, it top-posts.

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr uses strong words, but I agree with this: physics
must
make
sense. Mistakes of relativity need to be corrected.

Henry Haapalainen

Such as? (EG)

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

I asked for the "mistakes" of relativity, not the personal pet theory
of some crank. (EG)

Then we have nothing more to discuss.

Henry Haapalainen

"Tom Roberts" kirjoitti viestissä
m...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
Mistakes of relativity need to be corrected.

Before that is possible, these mistakes must be identified. So far,
nobody has been able to do that. Yourself and O'Barr included. And
others around here too numerous to mention.

Tom Roberts

Two objects A and B are nearing each other. A sends a light beam at c. B
receives it at c. But wavelength of the beam has shortened. We know that
wavelengths do not do that. So there must be a mistake. Now I proved it, if
you don't have time to read argumentations more profound.

Henry Haapalainen
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

In .com
wrote:
Harry wrote:
. . .

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Out of the few who responded to my post, you and
Harry were the only ones who even considered any of
the physics I presented. Thank you!
Today, we do have the power to understand that
clocks and rulers are physical objects, and they
cannot be understood unless we are as physical as
these objects are physical. We have the science that
can definitely say that the rates of clocks
physically vary, both due to the effects of velocity
and gravity. And if the rates of clocks are
physically affected, so are the lengths of rulers.
Such understanding must be considered even for such
simple tests as the MMX.
Today, as my first post indicated, we do have the
power and means of showing that all photons that move
in free space physically move at the same physical
rate as they go through space. No measurements have
to be made to show this and to understand this!
Knowing that they are physically moving together does
not require any velocity measurements at all.
Today, we can easily understand that all the
mysterious things that are measured are easily
understood once it is realized that what is measured
is a compound of effects: There really are changes
in the objects being measured, but there are also
changes in the tools (these clocks and rulers) that
are being used to make the measurements. And it is
the combined effects of both the real changes in the
objects being measured, and the real changes in the
tools being used to make the measurements, that
produces the final measurement results as given to us
in SR math. And so once all this is done, then the
actual changes that occurs (down below the
measurements made with changeable tools) become
logical, and reasonable, and understandable. All of
these complications must also include SR sync, that
is done by man, to set the clocks being used in a way
that forces the final solution to be as the math
requires it.
Now how do clocks change their rates? Anyone who
understands a light clock knows exactly how the rates
of such clocks would be affected by their velocities.
And anyone who knows how to determine the equal
potential shape of a charge on the surface of a
sphere, knows how the lengths will change with
velocity. That is, the length of objects held
together by electromagnetic forces. And thus, once
you understand these effects, and you understanding
what sync does for us, then you have all you need to
understand SR.
And anyone who knows the MMX experiment, sees how
all these things happen. And anyone who looks at all
these facts, and sees how they are mutually
supportive of one another, knows that these things
are not just accidental, but real. It would be
impossible to have all these things to be true
without there being some relationship to the SR
relationships. So why are these facts all ignored?
Why? Tell me why any thinking person would refuse to
even understand the reasons why others would believe
these things, based upon such inter-relationships as
these! Tell me why!

Harry said:
. . . I'm pretty sure that Lorentz and Einstein
would have agreed that a photon's speed is a
property of space, and not of the photon.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
No one knows why or how photons physically move in
space, and no one will know this until we have a
physical understanding of the ether. Certainly the
motion is dependent both on the characteristics of
both the photon and of the space in which it is
moving. A photon does not have to be a wave in the
ether! A jet airplane has all kinds of waves
associated with its motion, but it would be silly to
say that these waves are the cause of its motion!

. . . To Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e.,
inertial frame) would imply that Nature has
arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the
laws of electrodynamics are "true" in that frame
only because measuring rods and clocks are
undistorted in that frame).

O'Barr comments:
And this is stupid thinking! No one has to imply
anything like this, that nature has to be arbitrary
or acts in any kind of a prejudicial way! That is
silly thinking! All that has to be seen is what is
the simplest. There is only one reality! There is
only one frame in which we and all of reality exists!
It cannot get simpler than this!
And in this one frame, the physics is simple,
Newtonian like, with simple addition of velocity.
The fact that within this one frame, you can set up
any other inertial frame and still get similar
measurements as is found in the first frame is itself
simple, just as Lorentz showed us. The math might
get complicated, but the physics is simple and
completely known! It might seem odd, but physically
it is not odd. It in fact, cannot be any other way,
when you look at the physical situation that exists!


. . . Einstein regarded
such a possibility as a violation of his
philosophic notion of the harmony of
nature and the egalitarianism of inertial frames
(PoR).

O'Barr comments:
And what big words and important sounding
thoughts! But you see, they are only thoughts, and
nature pays no attention to such wild ideas. Nature
does not care about egalitarianism no matter how you
spell it, and nature does not care about our
philosophic notions. This all sounds so silly and so
immature and so isolated from reality! What a waste
of time to have such thoughts!

He also claimed that nature does not seem
to reveal any such frame in practice: Neither
the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in
electrodynamics seems to reveal that any inertial
frame is any different for the invention of
the laws of physics from any other inertial
frame.

O'Barr comments:
Oh the power of our preconceptions! Anyone can
see what they want to see. To be scientific, we must
see all that there is to see, and not prejudge. LET
is just as easy and just as clear and positive to see
and experience as SR. And any man who does not know
this is not a scientist! Every time anyone 'proves'
SR, you are in fact 'proving' LET! They are the
exact same math, make the exact same predictions, and
only a fool does not know that what I am saying is
correct!

. . . So, to Einstein, at heart Nature acts to
rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
Principle (locally), but not the dependence of
light speed on the source's motion. I emphasize
that when I say "speed," I mean actual measured
speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.

O'Barr comments:
Again, this sick assignment to nature as having a
will and acts to fool us, to make everything the same
when it of course things cannot be the same, is not
science. It is black magic. And it is going to come
to an end!

. . . Einstein referred to SR as a principle (as
opposed to a constructive) theory because it lacked
any attempt whatsoever to provide a hypothetical
model of propagation of E&M effects.

O'Barr comments:
A correct way to say this is that SR is only a
math theory. It provides zero physics in terms of
providing any physical understanding of what is
physical occurring. We get nothing to tell us why or
how things occur, and we are not told what things are
physically doing to cause other physical things to
occur. SR is only a measurement science, in that it
only tells us what will be measured, if we set up our
measurement system in one particular way. For all
these reasons, SR is a weak science.

He said that SR was the logical step away from
Maxwell's mechanical ether, taking in the practice
of late ninteenth century physicists to treat the E
and B fields as irreducible to mechanical
explanation. In other words, their habit was to
treat the E and B fields as described solely by the
so-called Maxwell equations and leave it at that,
leaving the ether as superfluous to calculation. If
you want a model of light propagation based on SR,
see Feynman's treatment in his book QED.

I may be wrong, but I think that it was Heaviside
who said, poetically, that electrodynamics and
Maxwell's equations are the same thing.

O'Barr comments:
You sure seem full of talk. It is important to
know what different ways can be taken in looking at
things! SR experts have taken one way. But they are
evil in not knowing and explaining to everyone that
in doing what they did, it was only a personal
choice. It was not based upon any experiment, not
based upon any logic. It was merely a personal
preference. And the rejection of LET, that is
openly done in the text books and on this net, is
unscientific.

. . . Einstein said that the MMX null result is
strange. He knew that light was not obeying
commonsense, whatever it was really obeying.

O'Barr comments:
The most strange thing of all is modern man, who
uses social power to make these mysterious beliefs of
SR to be supreme to the simple beliefs of LET. The
day will come when these days will be seen to be the
darkest of scientific thinking.
It is not just the fact that some might want to
believe in SR. Although this is as stupid as anyone
could possible get, to believe in a 4-D world, when
there is zero evidence, and to believe in breaks in
symmetry and jumps in times, etc. But the real act
that make all this so bad is the unwillingness to
acknowledge the equal ability of LET to do as much as
SR. This is really insane.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

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

. . . To Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e.,
inertial frame) would imply that Nature has
arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the
laws of electrodynamics are "true" in that frame
only because measuring rods and clocks are
undistorted in that frame).

O'Barr comments:
And this is stupid thinking! No one has to imply
anything like this, that nature has to be arbitrary
or acts in any kind of a prejudicial way! That is
silly thinking! All that has to be seen is what is
the simplest. There is only one reality! There is
only one frame in which we and all of reality exists!
It cannot get simpler than this!

So how did Nature choose which frame was to be the rest frame of the
ether? And if Nature didn't make that choice, who or what did?

....

He also claimed that nature does not seem
to reveal any such frame in practice: Neither
the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in
electrodynamics seems to reveal that any inertial
frame is any different for the invention of
the laws of physics from any other inertial
frame.

O'Barr comments:
Oh the power of our preconceptions! Anyone can
see what they want to see.

Except for O'Barr, who only sees the truth?

To be scientific, we must
see all that there is to see, and not prejudge. LET
is just as easy and just as clear and positive to see
and experience as SR. And any man who does not know
this is not a scientist! Every time anyone 'proves'
SR, you are in fact 'proving' LET! They are the
exact same math,

Yet they are very different theories from the ontological viewpoint.

make the exact same predictions, and
only a fool does not know that what I am saying is
correct!

So, SR tells us all we can see (i.e., measure) about nature in EM
phenomena. Therefore, anything more than that is non-empirical
conjecturing on our part.


. . . So, to Einstein, at heart Nature acts to
rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
Principle (locally), but not the dependence of
light speed on the source's motion. I emphasize
that when I say "speed," I mean actual measured
speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.

O'Barr comments:
Again, this sick assignment to nature as having a
will

The personification of Nature I used is just a metaphor, of course. I'm
not the one embarrashed by the need to explain this choice of special
inertial frame because I don't accept that there really is a rest frame
of some luminiferous ether.

and acts to fool us,

There is no fooling at all.

to make everything the same
when it of course things cannot be the same, is not
science. It is black magic. And it is going to come
to an end!

How can a successful principle theory be black magic? You're demonizing
a theory that works very well.


. . . Einstein referred to SR as a principle (as
opposed to a constructive) theory because it lacked
any attempt whatsoever to provide a hypothetical
model of propagation of E&M effects.

O'Barr comments:
A correct way to say this is that SR is only a
math theory.

No. That is an incorrect characterization of SR, because SR has
physical content. It makes testable physical predictions.

It provides zero physics in terms of
providing any physical understanding of what is
physical occurring.

We get a lot of explaining in SR -- it's just not the kind of
explaining that suits your personal prejudices.

We have to ask ourselves why it is that Newtonian mechanics, which uses
matter composed of electrical charges, shows us no preference in nature
in the inertial frame that we can use to perform physical experiments
and then invent the laws of physics based on the data collected.

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

wrote:
So how did Nature choose which frame was to be the
rest frame of the ether? And if Nature didn't make
that choice, who or what did?

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
These are silly questions. As was said in the
previous post, nature did not choose anything.
Nature just is. And all we have to do is to
understand what nature is, not why it did this or did
that, etc. You are making things to be things that
are silly and have no reason to consider!

deletes by O'Barr

wrote:
Except for O'Barr, who only sees the truth?

O'Barr comments:
I see everything that an SR expert sees. I see
that SR math is perfect! It has to be perfect, since
it is the same math as LET! There is nothing that I
miss. The problem again has nothing to do with what
you say is a problem!

O'Barr wrote:
To be scientific, we must see all that there is to
see, and not prejudge. LET is just as easy and
just as clear and positive to see and experience as
SR. And any man who does not know this is not a
scientist! Every time anyone 'proves' SR, you are
in fact 'proving' LET! They are the exact same
math,

wrote:
Yet they are very different theories from the
ontological viewpoint.

O'Barr comments:
Again and again, whatever you think you see as a
difference is only a matter of interpretation. You
cannot present one single test to show that these two
theories are different! You are thus being
unscientific! They are in fact the same theory, with
the same predictions, with the same results!
For you to say that there is a difference, forces
us to see that you are lying to yourself. And is
there a reason why you lie to yourself? Why do you
have to have the difference you claim? There are no
real differences. You force them be different, only
because you want them to be different. And it is
unscientific for you to say that there is a
difference, when in fact there is no difference! It
is as clear as it can be: SR is the correct math for
our reality, and LET is the correct physics that goes
with the correct math.
And there is no other way that any of this can be
considered. SR has no physics to go with the math,
and thus SR cannot present anything to disclaim this
position! It is too weak of a theory to even defend
itself! It is impossible to have any other answer
than what is being presented!

O'Barr wrote:
They make the exact same predictions, and
only a fool does not know that what I am saying is
correct!

wrote:
So, SR tells us all we can see (i.e., measure) about
nature in EM phenomena. Therefore, anything more
than that is non-empirical conjecturing on our part.

O'Barr comments:
The LET that is used on the sci.physics.relativity
net is different than Lorentz in several important
ways. First of all, we now know that the Lorentz
effect is followed by all things that have so far
been seen, not just e&m effects. This is important.
And I am sure you knew this!

deletes by O'Barr

O'Barr wrote:
A correct way to say this is that SR is only a
math theory.

wrote:
No. That is an incorrect characterization of SR,
because SR has physical content. It makes testable
physical predictions.

O'Barr comments:
It really is funny how everyone seems unwilling to
accept the obvious. Are you saying that a math
theory cannot provide testable physical predictions?
Look, Newton's law of gravity makes testable
physical predictions. But it is only a math theory.
And everyone knows this. What is your problem?
Everyone knows what a math theory is, and everyone
knows what a physical theory is. PV = nRT is a
physical theory: It is based upon physical
assumptions, and the math comes from the physical
assumptions. There are no physical assumptions in
SR, you only have one math constant, c, and you have
a rule that all math relationships have to be the
same in all frames. No one knows physically how c
can be a constant, it is just a math assumption, and
no one knows how all frames can have the same form,
it is only a math assumptions. So in SR, you do not
derive the math from any physical base what so ever!
Get over it! Only LET gives us physical objects,
with physical acts, upon which the math then becomes
developed! In LET, the physical assumptions control
the math, defines the math, limits the math, just as
all physical theories are known to do!

O'Barr wrote about SR:
It provides zero physics in terms of
providing any physical understanding of what is
physical occurring.

wrote:
We get a lot of explaining in SR -- it's just not
the kind of explaining that suits your personal
prejudices.

O'Barr comments:
Since SR has the same math as LET, then certainly
you get much from your math. But since you only have
the math, all you know are your final answers. You
do not know, you cannot know why or how any of your
answers exist. You do not really know if clocks slow
down, you only know that you get measurements as if
they did. You know nothing as what actually happens
to explain your answers, you only have the answers!
What a weak theory!

wrote:
We have to ask ourselves why it is that Newtonian
mechanics, which uses matter composed of electrical
charges, shows us no preference in nature in the
inertial frame that we can use to perform physical
experiments and then invent the laws of physics
based on the data collected.

O'Barr comments:
I am sure there are many things that we do not
know. But we do know that SR math works, and that
LET provides to us a physical base that explains this
math. And in using LET, we have a simpler reality
(only a 3-D reality, not 4-D), that has simpler laws
(no breaks in symmetry), and has the ability of being
understood with logic and reasonableness that is
totally missing in SR.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr