In sci.physics.relativity Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
What long posts these have become!

Please try to understand what I will try to say.
I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices
will probably not allow you to read farther. That is
fine. It would not do you any good if you have such
prejudices to read more. So please do not read more!

******************************
PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
gases) consists of particles that physically collide,
etc. The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the
results of the theory. The theory is a physical
theory. The math is developed from the physical
assumptions of the theory.

What is the physical explanation for why particles
collide and bounce off of each other? Where is
the justification for that assumption? Why is
that assumption more "physical" than the assumption
that matter attracts matter?

Stephen

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

O'Barr wrote:
PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
gases) consists of particles that physically
collide, etc. The theory is not PV = nRT.
PV = nRT is the
results of the theory. The theory is a physical
theory. The math is developed from the physical
assumptions of the theory. . . .

Stephen wrote:
What is the physical explanation for why particles
collide and bounce off of each other? Where is
the justification for that assumption? Why is
that assumption more "physical" than the assumption
that matter attracts matter?

O'Barr comments:
Stephen! It is good to hear from you again. Your
post did not get attached to my post, but you seem to
be trying to address me and my comments. So I will
answer you, even though you attached your post to the
wrong person. Why did you attach your post to PD, the
wrong person? Is it your reader's fault? Your
reader does not allow you to post to the correct
person?

You want to know which is the more physical? That
seems to be a silly question. Who cares what is the
more physical? Is your left hand more physical than
your right hand? Things are either physical or they
are not.
What is the physical explanation for why
particles collide and bounce off of each other?
Well, if we assume that there are repulsive force
fields around particles, and if these force fields
are stronger than the dynamic motions of these
particles towards each other, they appear to bounce
not for any physical reason (not due to any physical
contact), but because their fields end up redirecting
them away from each other. Is this the answer you
wanted?
I am not really sure of the point you are
trying to make. Solid matter is solid matter, and
therefore two solid-matter particles can not occupy
the same space. So when two solid-matter particles
come towards each other, each seeking to occupy the
same space, they must push each other away. This
makes as much common sense as can be made. So I must
not understand your question.
For two particles to attract each other, or affect
each other in any way, when not in physical contact,
is strange, and cannot be physically explained. Did
you really want me to say these things? Le Sage knew
this. Everyone who lived in the days of Newton knew
all this. Are you saying that we no longer know what
they knew?

We know that we live in a physical world. We know
what realistic theories are, and what is solid, real,
and viable. But those who believe in SR, they
worship this SR theory, and since they worship only a
math theory, then we get told that math is all there
is. We are told that math is all that is important.
They have to say this, in order to uphold their
religion. Thus we get fed a constant stream of lies,
of how everything is now different, and odd, and we
must give up all of our original beliefs. And we
must do all this so that they can worship their
religion.
But none of this is true. None of this is
scientific. There is no test that exists that
supports SR over LET! It is all just a personal
choice, not a scientific choice. And for this, they
will all be laughed at, as we come to see through all
these lies.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

In sci.physics.relativity Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In
Stephen wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

O'Barr wrote:
PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
gases) consists of particles that physically
collide, etc. The theory is not PV = nRT.
PV = nRT is the
results of the theory. The theory is a physical
theory. The math is developed from the physical
assumptions of the theory. . . .

Stephen wrote:
What is the physical explanation for why particles
collide and bounce off of each other? Where is
the justification for that assumption? Why is
that assumption more "physical" than the assumption
that matter attracts matter?

O'Barr comments:
Stephen! It is good to hear from you again. Your
post did not get attached to my post, but you seem to
be trying to address me and my comments. So I will
answer you, even though you attached your post to the
wrong person. Why did you attach your post to PD, the
wrong person? Is it your reader's fault? Your
reader does not allow you to post to the correct
person?

No, the problem is on your end. I replied to you,
and the headers show that.

You want to know which is the more physical? That
seems to be a silly question. Who cares what is the
more physical? Is your left hand more physical than
your right hand? Things are either physical or they
are not.

No, it is not a silly question.

What is the physical explanation for why
particles collide and bounce off of each other?
Well, if we assume that there are repulsive force
fields around particles, and if these force fields
are stronger than the dynamic motions of these
particles towards each other, they appear to bounce
not for any physical reason (not due to any physical
contact), but because their fields end up redirecting
them away from each other. Is this the answer you
wanted?

I want to know the physical reason for why things
bounce off of each other.

I am not really sure of the point you are
trying to make. Solid matter is solid matter, and
therefore two solid-matter particles can not occupy
the same space.

Says who? Do you have experimental verification
of that? Every instance you have ever observed
of physical objects bouncing off of each other
was due to repulsive force fields. You seem
to not have a physical explanation for these
force fields, and instead just rely on the
blatant assumption that solid matter cannot
occupy the same space.

So when two solid-matter particles
come towards each other, each seeking to occupy the
same space, they must push each other away. This
makes as much common sense as can be made. So I must
not understand your question.

You have not explained the physical reason why
two solid objects cannot occupy the same space,
nor the physical reason why or how they push
each other. Can you describe in detail how
the particles affect each other when they collide?

For two particles to attract each other, or affect
each other in any way, when not in physical contact,
is strange, and cannot be physically explained.

You cannot even explain how the affect each other
when they are in physical contact. Just claiming
that it is "common sense" is not an explanation.

So, once again, what is the physical explanation
for why gas molecules, or any particles, bounce off of each other?

Stephen

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Juan R. wrote:
Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.

Try this for starters. Your link states:
Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré.
Their views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some
other authors.

Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
Special Relativity.'

Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these postulates,
there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms. You need to return that book for a full
refund because Abraham Pais did not understand Lorentz Transforms.

The rest of your rubbish if full of similar misconceptions and selective
quotes deliberately designed to present your spin rather than a balanced
analysis of the evidence.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:mqbjf.73$La5.67@fed1read01...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Juan R. wrote:
Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.

Try this for starters. Your link states:
Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré.
Their views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some
other authors.

Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
Special Relativity.'

Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these
postulates, there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms.

Since LET has exactly the same transformations but not the postulates of SR
you are trivially incorrect. Learn the basics then repost. However I doubt
you will since you have been given that advice for some time now and ignored
it.

Bill

You need to return that book for a full refund because Abraham Pais did
not understand Lorentz Transforms.

The rest of your rubbish if full of similar misconceptions and selective
quotes deliberately designed to present your spin rather than a balanced
analysis of the evidence.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these
postulates, there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms.

Since LET has exactly the same transformations but not the postulates of
SR you are trivially incorrect. Learn the basics then repost. However I
doubt you will since you have been given that advice for some time now and
ignored it.

Calm down, dude. Since the classical Lorentz Transforms created the Twins
Paradox mess, it cannot be possibly correct. LET is in the same dump as SR.
After all, LET and SR share the same mathematics thus the same fate.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:52:31 -0800, "Koobee Wublee"
wrote:


"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these
postulates, there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms.

Since LET has exactly the same transformations but not the postulates of
SR you are trivially incorrect. Learn the basics then repost. However I
doubt you will since you have been given that advice for some time now and
ignored it.

Calm down, dude. Since the classical Lorentz Transforms created the Twins
Paradox mess, it cannot be possibly correct. LET is in the same dump as SR.
After all, LET and SR share the same mathematics thus the same fate.

There is no real Twin Paradox, there is only a"so-called Twin paradox"
Mathematically it is fully solvable and without remaining
contradictions.
w.

"Juan R." wrote in message
oups.com...
Harry ha escrito:

"Juan R." wrote
Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational
principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first
rejecting Lorentz absolute aether,

In which paper and where exactly do you think that he rejected Lorentz's
ether concept?

Harald

Poincaré is difficult to understand at first. One may read many
Poincaré papers for follow his FULL program. Poincaré emphasized that
time was relative, neglected Newtonian absolute motion studied many
interesting stuff as action-reaction principle bodies contraction, etc.
and remarked delay of EM and gravity interactions. From all this
follows that Poincaré aether cannot be absolute with respect to our
measurements.

I am mainly inspired on arXivhysics/0408077 v4 6 Jul 2005. See here
references and quotes

That Poincaré abandoned the absolute aether frame measured by true
Lorentz time was discussed by own Lorentz in 1914 in his "The two
papers by Henri Poincar´e on mathematical physics.
Others authors expressing similar thoughts[*]

Well, I read that paper by Lorentz (I can send you the PDF), and I can
state with confidence: no such thing!

At variance with Lorentz' perspective, Poincaré had no privileged
reference frame but a completely relativistic point of view, by which
also dynamical effects are no more absolute ones, but relative to the
reference frame: that is, dynamics is relative to the kinematics of the
reference frames.

That happens to be the shared POV of Newton, Lorentz, Poincare and
Einstein! It doesn't say anything about their POV's of the underlying cause
(indeed, this point is often misunderstood, starting with Newton's theory).

Remember that in a letter to Lorentz dated 17 June 1916, Einstein
wrote:
" I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits
of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity
theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the
principle of relativity."
And that In 1920 at a lecture in Leiden, Einstein explained why a
revised notion of the ether was required in physics. He repeated
Poincaré's claims of 1900, presented at the Paris physics congress
and used a "relativistic aether".

I don't claim nor agree that Einstein's thinking should be projected on
that of Poincare.
And I likely read most, if not all, of the below[*] articles by other
authors. I have found no well founded support for your claim, even if they
stated it first.

Another flaw that I spotted in your article: the E=mc^2 derivation is
generally considered to be non-circular, as explained in articles that
comment on the one by Ives. I agree with them that he was mistaken on that
point.

BTW, I found your addition on Einstein and Hilbert very interesting, and I
look forward to see criticism on that. For me, it represents real new
information.

Best regards,
Harald

[*] Jules-Henri Poincaré e la nascita della relatività speciale, and
delivered at the LXXIX Congresso Nazionale Società Italiana di Fisica,
Udine 27 Settembre - 2 Ottobre 1993 on 27 September 1993; then, in a
conference entitled Jules-Henri Poincaré and the Rise of Special
Relativity, delivered at the Congrès International Henri Poincaré,
Nancy 14-18 Mai 1994, on 18 May 1994; in a conference entitled Henri
Poincaré and the Rise of Special Relativity, delivered at the
International Seminar Devoted to the 140th Birthday
of Henri Poincaré, High Energy Physics and Field Theory XVII Seminar,
Protvino
(Moscow) June 27 - July 1, 1994, on 27 June 1994 (see a Russian
interviewsummary
published on Yckoriteav 4 (181) (14 July 1994), p. 2; in a conference
entitled La fisica del '900: Henri Poincaré e la relatività,
delivered at the
Seminari di Storia delle Scienze, Almo Collegio Borromeo, Pavia 1995,
on 30
March 1995. Partial results of this historiographical inquiry were
discussed in:
Henri Poincaré and the rise of special relativity , in Quanta
Relativity
Gravitation: Proceedings of the XVIII (1995) Workshop 'Problems on High
Energy
Physics and Field Theory, Protvino (Mosca),1996, pp. 3-31; a review of
the book
Relatività Speciale by A. A. Tyapkin, in Le Scienze n. 307 (March
1994), p. 92; a
review of the book Scritti di Fisica-Matematica by J.-H. Poincaré,
edited by U.
Sanzo, in Le Scienze n. 312 (August 1994), pp. 88-89; Note
Storico-Critiche sul
Mutamento e il "Realismo": Henri Poincaré, la Relatività Speciale e
le Teorie
Fisiche, in Ancora sul Realismo. Aspetti di una Controversia della
Fisica
Contemporanea, ed. by G. Giuliani, Goliardica Pavese, Pavia 1995, pp.
241-249;
Note sul tempo e sul moto attraverso la storia della fisica e le
critiche filosofiche,
in Atti del XIII Congresso Nazionale di Storia della Fisica, ed. by A.
Rossi, Conti,
Lecce 1995, pp. 9-43.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:SKdjf.86$La5.35@fed1read01...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these
postulates, there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms.

Since LET has exactly the same transformations but not the postulates of
SR you are trivially incorrect. Learn the basics then repost. However I
doubt you will since you have been given that advice for some time now
and ignored it.

Calm down, dude.

I am calm.

Since the classical Lorentz Transforms created the Twins Paradox mess, it
cannot be possibly correct.

Just another example of your ignorance. The so called twin paradox is not a
paradox in SR or LET - in fact it has been experimentally confirmed.

LET is in the same dump as SR. After all, LET and SR share the same
mathematics thus the same fate.

On this you are correct.

Bill

wrote in message
ups.com...
SNIP

Poincare did not submit for publication to a physics journal
the THEORY of relativity. That's the point!

According to Poincare, a good theory of relativity for which he had asked
some years earlier was finally provided (with some flaws that he corrected)
by Lorentz in 1904. He didn't realise that at that time Lorentz had not yet
fully understood his own local time, so that such a publication could be
regarded by himself as a usurpation. Instead he simply pointed out that
Lorentz's theory was conform to the PoR and in his later publications he
consistently referred to Lorentz when discussing relativity, without credit
to himself or Einstein.

It's great material for a movie )

Harald