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

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


It is a natural preconception to imagine there are two and ONLY two
possibilities:
a) that the source drives the transport of light and therefore the
speed of light is tied to the speed of the source
b) that a medium drives the transport of light and therefore the speed
of light is tied to the speed of the medium

Fortunately, both of these have testable consequences in nature, and
much to everyone's surprise, neither of the testable consequences come
to pass in real observations. Thus, there is a fundamental problem: We
imagine only two possibilities, and nature says "think again."

This is where it is appropriate to go back to what you know about
Maxwell's equations and light and ask yourself if there really needs to
be something *external* to light that drives light's transport. And
indeed, Maxwell himself first thought so, as did Einstein probably, but
both of them reconsidered and came to the conclusion that light is
responsible for its own transport, the fields themselves causing the
propagation of the fields.

Another problem remains, having to do with the very notion of a
velocity, which is customarily thought of being automatically defined
with respect to a reference point. What is the reference point for
light's velocity, if it propagates itself. What physical origin does
the light "push off" against.

And here is where Einstein made the leap to recognize that velocity is
not in fact referenced to a *physical* artifact at all, but to a
reference frame with or without physical artifacts. There being nothing
to "push off" against except for empty space itself requires a new
understanding of what space (and time) really are, and what we mean by
the difference between two locations in space (and/or time).

Moral of the story: Just because you have a preconception that seems
completely natural does not mean that it is right. If nature tells you
your idea about what pushes light is wrong, if nature tells you your
idea of what velocity means is wrong, then *automatically* nature is
right and you are wrong, and it's time to dispense with the
natural-feeling preconception.

PD

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
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!

SR and LET are different models which make the same predictions, which
means they can only be differentiated subjectively, but collective
subjectivity has relegated LET to the history books, and you've given no
rational argument for resurrecting it that hasn't already been well
considered and collectively rejected. You're wasting your time.

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,

Nonsense, it has exactly the same Physics as LET does, since both make
the same predictions; the "Physics" *is* the prediction of real-world
measurements.

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!

Your ignorance of the difference between foolishness and ignorance makes
you look foolish.



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.

What's "really funny" is someone who thinks it's everybody else but them
who's missing "the obvious". Your below caricature of scientific theory
is pretty funny too.

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

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
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.

No, these questions are fundamental to anyone who thinks that LET is
THE theory that answers all important questions regarding the nature of
E&M. Your attempt to vilify these questions only proves that you are
hiding behind an ineffective smoke screen, rather than try to honestly
deal with them.


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!

Fine! If nature didn't choose the rest frame of the ether, who or what
did? Or was it just an accident. The ether --- a grand accident?


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.

No, you don't.

I see
that SR math is perfect! It has to be perfect, since
it is the same math as LET!

Neither SR nor LET is perfect as theories.

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!

Theories are more than tests. Theories are also explanations in terms
of causations! (You make that point all the time!) SR has two kinds of
fundamental things in it: field and mass-energy particles. LET has
three kinds of fundamental things in it: field (maybe, depending on
whether ether can explain all noncontact interactions between
particles), mass particles, and ether. The two theories are very
different as explanations.

If we allow your crazy way of arguing, we would have to allow one to
say that every atheistic explanation of cause and effect is really a
hidden version of a theistic theory which explains the same effects in
terms of an ultimate God-cause. (I merely point the formal
differences.)

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?

What unmitigated sophistry you engage in!

....

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!

Your comment was nonresponsive to my claim! I repeat: Your ether is
non-empirical conjecturing on your part. Show it to us.


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?


I already told you that I object to your characterizations. I have
every right to make up my definitions as you have to make up your
definitions.

Look, Newton's law of gravity makes testable
physical predictions. But it is only a math theory.

Depends on the definition of "math theory" one uses.

And everyone knows this. What is your problem?

Semantics and free will and the desire for clarification rather than
obfuscation.

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.

1905 SR has many physical assumptions:

1) the comparison of the time components of distant events
cannot be performed until some means of clock synchronization
has been defined and implimented
2) time is not absolute
3) personal time runs at a constant apparent rate for the
person using a single working clock sharing the same
motion as the person
4) the measured speed of light in an inertial frame in a
vacuum is the fixed number c
5) the laws of physics, which account for the behavior of
objects subject to E&M forces, are the same in all inertial
reference frames
6) the laws of physics regarding the motions of charged test
particles reduce to the laws of motion of Newton when
the speeds of the test particles are very small compared
to the speed of light
7) the differential comparison of clock rates between inertial
and non-inertial clocks must be formed as a limit procedure
on the approximation of the non-inertial clock as undergoing
n numerous small inertial motions, as the number n goes to
infinity (standard calculus approximation)

The above rules (which might be reduced in number with some effort)
dictate how the SR theory will be developed, and insofar as they tell
us something about either the behaviors of measuring instruments
(primitive laws of physics) or the laws of physics more generally, they
have physical content and therefore constitute a physical theory. One
has physical content anytime one has a description of the behavior of
physical things. Ironically, we don't even know if ether is a physical
thing. As far as anyone can tell physically (by our bodily interactions
with the universe), the luminiferous ether lives only inside of ether
theories. But nobody doubts the existence of clocks and measuring rods
and other macroscopic measuring instruments. Their behavior is what
physics is all about!
....


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.

Yet another nonresponsive reply to a simple, direct question! By
accepting the existence of a preferred or special inertial frame in LET
(the rest frame of the ether), one has given oneself of bunch of
difficult questions to try to answer --- questions which don't even
come up in SR in the first place.

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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


It is a natural preconception to imagine there are two and ONLY two
possibilities:
a) that the source drives the transport of light and therefore the
speed of light is tied to the speed of the source
b) that a medium drives the transport of light and therefore the speed
of light is tied to the speed of the medium

Fortunately, both of these have testable consequences in nature, and
much to everyone's surprise, neither of the testable consequences come
to pass in real observations. Thus, there is a fundamental problem: We
imagine only two possibilities, and nature says "think again."

This is nonsense.....you SRians gave past experimental results the improper
interpretations. The proper interpretation is that the speed of light is
source independent due to that light waves are being transitted by a
stationary ether and that the absolute motin of the earth wrt the local
horizontal light rays is in the vertical direction.

Ken Seto

"Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message
...

"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.

That's right....doppler shift is evidence for the varying speed of light.
The wavelength remains constant and the speed of light varies according to
the doppler shift.

Ken Seto

wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

There is no need to locate the rest frame of the ether. All the observers
are in a state of absolute motion. Acknowledging that will give rise to a
new theory of motion call IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including
gravity. A description of IRT are included in the following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities,com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto

...

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.

kenseto wrote:
"Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message
...

"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.

That's right....doppler shift is evidence for the varying speed of light.
The wavelength remains constant and the speed of light varies according to
the doppler shift.
That sounds backwards.
Did you mis-speak or did they mis-measure?
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif

Sue...


Ken Seto

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message
...

"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.

That's right....doppler shift is evidence for the varying speed of light.
The wavelength remains constant and the speed of light varies according to
the doppler shift.
That sounds backwards.
Did you mis-speak or did they mis-measure?
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif

NO....that's not backward. There is nothing that changes the wavelength
during flight. But the absolute motion of the observer or the source will
affect the speed of light in the form of doppler shift.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

There is no need to locate the rest frame of the ether. All the observers
are in a state of absolute motion. Acknowledging that will give rise to a
new theory of motion call IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including
gravity. A description of IRT are included in the following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities,com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto

Of course "There is no need to locate the rest frame of the ether,"
because the luminiferous ether is dispensible (superfluous) for doing
physics, hence SR. Every inertial frame acts as though it's the rest
frame of the ether. Hence the PoR to E&M.

kenseto wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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


It is a natural preconception to imagine there are two and ONLY two
possibilities:
a) that the source drives the transport of light and therefore the
speed of light is tied to the speed of the source
b) that a medium drives the transport of light and therefore the speed
of light is tied to the speed of the medium

Fortunately, both of these have testable consequences in nature, and
much to everyone's surprise, neither of the testable consequences come
to pass in real observations. Thus, there is a fundamental problem: We
imagine only two possibilities, and nature says "think again."

This is nonsense.....you SRians gave past experimental results the improper
interpretations. The proper interpretation is that the speed of light is
source independent due to that light waves are being transitted by a
stationary ether and that the absolute motin of the earth wrt the local
horizontal light rays is in the vertical direction.

Ken Seto

And there's stuff like this -- an example of how experimental results
are interpreted with an internally corrupt and inconsistent conceptual
scheme, which features as its centerpiece the notion that a single body
(the Earth) can bear a single absolute velocity with respect to an
ambient medium that is radially outward from the body in all directions
simultaneously.

PD