Fundamental weaknesses of SR.
By Gerald L. O'Barr
01 Aug 06

Special Relativity (SR) is used to make
predictions of what will be measured of certain
mechanical acts that occur in our reality. This
includes the things that will be measured in one
frame, when what is occurring in another frame is
specified. Such abilities, to predict what would be
measured, is of course critical to any science. And
SR is one of the greatest scientific achievements
that we have so far seen.
However, no theory should be accepted as being
perfect, unless or until we have 'the theory of
everything.' I believe that the following are some
of the major fundamental weaknesses that exist in
this theory.

1) SR is only a math theory.
2) SR uses 4-D.
3) SR cannot invalidate its nearest competitor.
4) SR lacks several cause and effect relationships.
5) SR has many physical paradoxes.

Each of these weaknesses will be briefly presented.

1) SR is only a math theory.

SR tells us what will be measured. And it tells
us how to set up measurement frames in which such
measurements will be valid. But it provides no
information as to how or why we get the measurements
we get. In other words, we do not know what things
are really doing, so that what is measured is what is
measured.
Certainly, the things being measured are
physically acting in some controlled way. And the
tools being used to make these measurements must also
be acting in some controlled way. And the combined
set of actions of the things being measured, and the
tools being used to measure them, must both be
considered together to produce for us a final set of
measurements. So what exactly is it that happens, so
that we get what is measured? SR does not provide us
any of these details.
In SR, we do not know how individual objects
really act. In SR, we do not know exactly how the
measurement tools act. All we have is the final set
of measurement values. This final set of measurement
values is most valuable. But it leaves us not
knowing many things. Thus, SR provides us with very
little physics, in terms of physical explanations as
to what physical things are actually doing.
All you have in SR is a measurement math theory,
a math that provides math relationships that gives us
predictive measurement values, but all other
explanations as to why and how such measurement
values are obtained must just be accepted by faith.

Let us look at this problem in terms of a specific
example:
SR says that any velocity measurements made of the
speed of light in free space will be c. And so it
is. However, how such a constant velocity can be
achieved, when the different frames doing these
measurements might themselves be moving at all kinds
of different velocities, seems physically to be
impossible and unexplainable. Thus, SR stands unable
to give physical justification to what it tells us.
We are left in the dark, so to speak. For these
reasons, SR is a weak theory. SR is not able to be
explained or understood in any physical sense.
SR is unable to tell us how it is that we are able
to always measure c, when physically, there is no
logical or obvious way for such a constant value to
physically occur when there are arbitrary relative
velocities involved. To say that this might be due
to reality being 4-D is fine, but this does not
remove the weakness. It adds to the weakness in that
there are no tests to show that reality is 4-D, or
even how any of this is physically possible even if
it were 4-D.
Also, one can truthfully say that this constant
speed of light is a postulate of SR, and so it does
not have to be explained. No matter how true this
might be, it still means that SR is still weak, in
that because it is a postulate, then we will never
understand the 'whys' and 'hows' of this constant, if
all we have is SR. Thus, in terms of actual physics,
SR again has to be seen to be a weak theory.
Let us repeat this thought one more time:
There just have to be other things going on, that
we do not know about, things that SR does not tell
us, in order for such measurements as a constant c to
occur. And thus, SR is weak in that it does not tell
us enough about our reality so that is it reasonable
to our understanding. Something is missing. And SR
does not provide to us what is missing.
Thus, we have this weakness of SR. It is not
complete enough for us to be fully able to physically
understand our reality. SR is only math, and not
physics. This is an important weakness.


2) SR uses 4-D.

It is common knowledge that Lorentz (in his ether
theory, his LET) demonstrated that a simple 3-D
reality, that has clocks with rates that vary, and
rulers with lengths that vary, can produce the
identical math results as seen in SR. This has
several important results. First, it means that SR
and LET are the identical theory, in terms of any
test measurement result. And as long as anyone
remains on the test measurement result level, these
two theories are identical. One of them cannot
disprove the other on a measurement level. They will
forever be locked together for as long as either one
of them exist.
As SR is presented today (not as it was originally
presented by Einstein), SR uses a 4-D spacetime
continuum. And anyone who wishes to consider this,
has to know that a simple 3-D space has to be
physically simpler than a 4-D reality. Therefore,
anyone being scientific, would never require one to
have to have a 4-D reality unless it was actually
necessary. Unless you had to actually have 4-D in
order to get the results that were being measured,
the normal scientific approach is to keep things
physically as simple as possible.
Thus, there are absolutely no physical
requirements for having to have a 4-D. There are no
tests that can differentiate between SR 4-D, and the
simpler 3-D of Lorentz. Thus, 4-D is a physical
burden for SR. It makes SR impossible to physically
understand, with no possible testing available to
establish the existing of what it accepts.

3) SR cannot invalidate its nearest competitor:

Because of 2), then scientifically SR is not able
to find any way to differentiate itself from LET. We
find that SR and LET will forever, in a math sense,
be linked together. These theories are
mathematically the same theory. They might have had
differences in their origins. But by the time one
gets to the final equations, they end up being the
same theory.
Although this seems odd, since they are actually
almost totally opposites of each other (one being an
absolute approach, the other a relative approach),
they do make the same math predictions. And thus,
scientifically, one cannot disprove the other. They
will always support each other. The conclusion of
one will always be the conclusion of the other, as
long as we remain in the math measurement mode.
Thus, SR will never be able to disprove the 3-D
approach. Any 'proof' of SR is 'proof' of 3-D! This
is a definite weakness of SR, and this weakness will
never be able to be removed.

Now wouldn't this also make LET weak, since it
likewise would not be able to mathematically separate
itself from SR? The problem here is that although SR
and LET end up having the same final math, and make
the same math measurement predictions, they do not
share the same original or basic assumptions. SR
starts out by just assuming certain math measurement
functions: that the measured speed of light is c, and
that all variable measurement equations will be of
the same form in all frames.
But LET does not start out by directly depending
upon just measurement functions. LET begins by
making physical assumptions and by stipulating these
physical assumptions independent of what might
actually be measured. Then, by knowing what is
actually physically happening, then LET determines
what would actually be measured, if things actually
did what was stipulated.
Thus, in LET, there are no physical paradoxes.
What physically occurs is fully and completely
explained, and the measurements are then the natural
results of what was physically occurring. Thus,
while we have all these physical paradoxes in SR,
there are no physical paradoxes in LET. And while in
SR we have no understanding of why c is a measurement
constant, in LET we have a physical explanation as to
why the measurement is a constant.
We might not fully know, in LET, why c has an
absolute constant velocity, but if c has an
absolutely constant velocity, we can physically
understand why the measurement of the velocity
remains a constant. Because of these situations,
then LET ends up being superior to SR, even though
the math utility of these two theories in providing
to us correct measurements remain the same.


4) SR lacks several cause and effect relationships:

We, today, are smart enough not to believe
everything we see. If we take a strong, straight,
steel wire, and put one end of it into a clear glass
of water, we will see the wire as if it were bent.
But our intellect will not allow us to believe that
the wire is actually bent.
Why do we know that the wire is not bent? Because
we know that in order for the wire to physically
bend, there would have to be some very strong forces
applied to it, and we know that liquid water cannot
apply such forces to such a wire. Also, if such
forces were applied to this wire, we should have felt
some of those forces, or certain reactions to these
forces, as we move the wire around in this water. In
fact, we could even expect to see some changes in the
temperature of the wire, if such bends could be made,
up and down the wire, over and over, etc. No! The
wire cannot be bending for a multitude of reasons.
Because of our intellect, we have to conclude
that the bending of this wire is an illusion. And to
support this conclusion, we also understand how such
an illusion can occur, in that the light by which we
are observing this act can itself be bent. And so
the whole act is able to be explained, from start to
finish. And our intellect is fully and completely
satisfied. All of this is good physics.
Now to be more scientific (although all of the
above is good science), let us consider the
following: We intellectually know and believe that
there must be a proportional cause for any real
effect to take place. And vice versus, if there is
any cause, there must be an effect. You cannot get
something from nothing, and you cannot do something
without seeing a result or an end effect. Any
exceptions would be due an explanation, and a very
good explanation.
All of the above is important. And yet, our
belief in Special Relativity (SR) violates these very
concepts. Let us consider: You are in a giant
rocket ship, placed upon a line directed towards a
distant star. You measure the velocity of light as
it comes from this star. It is measured to be c.
Then you "rev up" the rocket motor, you blast off,
you consume millions and millions of gallons of fuel,
and accelerate your rocket until it reaches the
fantastic velocity of one-half c. While at this
great velocity, you then re-measure the velocity of
light as it is coming towards you from this same
star. And what do you get? You get no change at
all! It is still c.
The fact that you have burned millions and
millions of gallons of fuel! The fact that you have
felt all these powerful accelerations! The fact that
you have felt these terrific vibrations and heat and
noise, you see no change at all in a parameter that
should have first order effects with your actions.
This is intellectually impossible. It is not
acceptable. No matter how correct it might be, it
must be explained.
But guess what! SR does not offer one single
explanation to this impossible situation. As far as
present day science goes, SR is weak. It is
incapable of explaining some of the most basic
intellectual assumptions that exist. And we are in
need of these explanations that cannot be provided by
SR.
In LET, real changes occur with every act. The
measurement might not change, but this is only because
some changes can cancel out the effects of the
others. Cause and effects are not violated at any
time.


5) SR has many physical paradoxes:

All physically impossible measurements are what
we call paradoxes. Please note, there are no
paradoxes in the actual math. The math proves to be
internally self consistent, and you never get into
any situation where the measurement provides an
answer that is inconsistent with any other answer
within SR. But the results are not able to be
directly imagined in the human mind. That is, the
speed of light just cannot be a real constant, if the
frames doing the measurements have relative
velocities between them.
Now relativity paradoxes have been things that
have had a lot of coverage, and I have no desire of
going over such familiar material. But just so it is
repeated at least one more time, in LET, there are
never any paradoxes, either in the math, or in the
physical acts, not even imagined paradoxes. Only in
SR are there physical acts that are not possible,
unless there really are acts that are not presently
accepted in SR. That is, there must be real slowing
of clocks, and real changes in dimensions, if some of
these paradoxes are going to be fully and completely
explained.
Anyone that demands that SR does not allow for
there to be any real change, no real change in the
rates of clocks, and no real change in lengths of
rulers, then SR ends up being a weak theory, because
it becomes unable to physically explain many of these
paradoxes.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...

[deletes by Androcles]
|
Thanks for reading.

Androcles.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Fundamental weaknesses of SR.
By Gerald L. O'Barr
01 Aug 06

Special Relativity (SR) is used to make
predictions of what will be measured of certain
mechanical acts that occur in our reality. This
includes the things that will be measured in one
frame, when what is occurring in another frame is
specified. Such abilities, to predict what would be
measured, is of course critical to any science. And
SR is one of the greatest scientific achievements
that we have so far seen.
However, no theory should be accepted as being
perfect, unless or until we have 'the theory of
everything.' I believe that the following are some
of the major fundamental weaknesses that exist in
this theory.

1) SR is only a math theory.
2) SR uses 4-D.
3) SR cannot invalidate its nearest competitor.
4) SR lacks several cause and effect relationships.
5) SR has many physical paradoxes.

Each of these weaknesses will be briefly presented.

1) SR is only a math theory.

SR tells us what will be measured. And it tells
us how to set up measurement frames in which such
measurements will be valid. But it provides no
information as to how or why we get the measurements
we get. In other words, we do not know what things
are really doing, so that what is measured is what is
measured.
Certainly, the things being measured are
physically acting in some controlled way. And the
tools being used to make these measurements must also
be acting in some controlled way. And the combined
set of actions of the things being measured, and the
tools being used to measure them, must both be
considered together to produce for us a final set of
measurements. So what exactly is it that happens, so
that we get what is measured? SR does not provide us
any of these details.
In SR, we do not know how individual objects
really act. In SR, we do not know exactly how the
measurement tools act. All we have is the final set
of measurement values. This final set of measurement
values is most valuable. But it leaves us not
knowing many things. Thus, SR provides us with very
little physics, in terms of physical explanations as
to what physical things are actually doing.
All you have in SR is a measurement math theory,
a math that provides math relationships that gives us
predictive measurement values, but all other
explanations as to why and how such measurement
values are obtained must just be accepted by faith.

Let us look at this problem in terms of a specific
example:
SR says that any velocity measurements made of the
speed of light in free space will be c. And so it
is. However, how such a constant velocity can be
achieved, when the different frames doing these
measurements might themselves be moving at all kinds
of different velocities, seems physically to be
impossible and unexplainable. Thus, SR stands unable
to give physical justification to what it tells us.
We are left in the dark, so to speak. For these
reasons, SR is a weak theory. SR is not able to be
explained or understood in any physical sense.
SR is unable to tell us how it is that we are able
to always measure c, when physically, there is no
logical or obvious way for such a constant value to
physically occur when there are arbitrary relative
velocities involved. To say that this might be due
to reality being 4-D is fine, but this does not
remove the weakness. It adds to the weakness in that
there are no tests to show that reality is 4-D, or
even how any of this is physically possible even if
it were 4-D.
Also, one can truthfully say that this constant
speed of light is a postulate of SR, and so it does
not have to be explained. No matter how true this
might be, it still means that SR is still weak, in
that because it is a postulate, then we will never
understand the 'whys' and 'hows' of this constant, if
all we have is SR. Thus, in terms of actual physics,
SR again has to be seen to be a weak theory.
Let us repeat this thought one more time:
There just have to be other things going on, that
we do not know about, things that SR does not tell
us, in order for such measurements as a constant c to
occur. And thus, SR is weak in that it does not tell
us enough about our reality so that is it reasonable
to our understanding. Something is missing. And SR
does not provide to us what is missing.
Thus, we have this weakness of SR. It is not
complete enough for us to be fully able to physically
understand our reality. SR is only math, and not
physics. This is an important weakness.


2) SR uses 4-D.

It is common knowledge that Lorentz (in his ether
theory, his LET) demonstrated that a simple 3-D
reality, that has clocks with rates that vary, and
rulers with lengths that vary, can produce the
identical math results as seen in SR. This has
several important results. First, it means that SR
and LET are the identical theory, in terms of any
test measurement result. And as long as anyone
remains on the test measurement result level, these
two theories are identical. One of them cannot
disprove the other on a measurement level. They will
forever be locked together for as long as either one
of them exist.
As SR is presented today (not as it was originally
presented by Einstein), SR uses a 4-D spacetime
continuum. And anyone who wishes to consider this,
has to know that a simple 3-D space has to be
physically simpler than a 4-D reality. Therefore,
anyone being scientific, would never require one to
have to have a 4-D reality unless it was actually
necessary. Unless you had to actually have 4-D in
order to get the results that were being measured,
the normal scientific approach is to keep things
physically as simple as possible.
Thus, there are absolutely no physical
requirements for having to have a 4-D. There are no
tests that can differentiate between SR 4-D, and the
simpler 3-D of Lorentz. Thus, 4-D is a physical
burden for SR. It makes SR impossible to physically
understand, with no possible testing available to
establish the existing of what it accepts.

3) SR cannot invalidate its nearest competitor:

Because of 2), then scientifically SR is not able
to find any way to differentiate itself from LET. We
find that SR and LET will forever, in a math sense,
be linked together. These theories are
mathematically the same theory. They might have had
differences in their origins. But by the time one
gets to the final equations, they end up being the
same theory.
Although this seems odd, since they are actually
almost totally opposites of each other (one being an
absolute approach, the other a relative approach),
they do make the same math predictions. And thus,
scientifically, one cannot disprove the other. They
will always support each other. The conclusion of
one will always be the conclusion of the other, as
long as we remain in the math measurement mode.
Thus, SR will never be able to disprove the 3-D
approach. Any 'proof' of SR is 'proof' of 3-D! This
is a definite weakness of SR, and this weakness will
never be able to be removed.

Now wouldn't this also make LET weak, since it
likewise would not be able to mathematically separate
itself from SR? The problem here is that although SR
and LET end up having the same final math, and make
the same math measurement predictions, they do not
share the same original or basic assumptions. SR
starts out by just assuming certain math measurement
functions: that the measured speed of light is c, and
that all variable measurement equations will be of
the same form in all frames.
But LET does not start out by directly depending
upon just measurement functions. LET begins by
making physical assumptions and by stipulating these
physical assumptions independent of what might
actually be measured. Then, by knowing what is
actually physically happening, then LET determines
what would actually be measured, if things actually
did what was stipulated.
Thus, in LET, there are no physical paradoxes.
What physically occurs is fully and completely
explained, and the measurements are then the natural
results of what was physically occurring. Thus,
while we have all these physical paradoxes in SR,
there are no physical paradoxes in LET. And while in
SR we have no understanding of why c is a measurement
constant, in LET we have a physical explanation as to
why the measurement is a constant.
We might not fully know, in LET, why c has an
absolute constant velocity, but if c has an
absolutely constant velocity, we can physically
understand why the measurement of the velocity
remains a constant. Because of these situations,
then LET ends up being superior to SR, even though
the math utility of these two theories in providing
to us correct measurements remain the same.


4) SR lacks several cause and effect relationships:

We, today, are smart enough not to believe
everything we see. If we take a strong, straight,
steel wire, and put one end of it into a clear glass
of water, we will see the wire as if it were bent.
But our intellect will not allow us to believe that
the wire is actually bent.
Why do we know that the wire is not bent? Because
we know that in order for the wire to physically
bend, there would have to be some very strong forces
applied to it, and we know that liquid water cannot
apply such forces to such a wire. Also, if such
forces were applied to this wire, we should have felt
some of those forces, or certain reactions to these
forces, as we move the wire around in this water. In
fact, we could even expect to see some changes in the
temperature of the wire, if such bends could be made,
up and down the wire, over and over, etc. No! The
wire cannot be bending for a multitude of reasons.
Because of our intellect, we have to conclude
that the bending of this wire is an illusion. And to
support this conclusion, we also understand how such
an illusion can occur, in that the light by which we
are observing this act can itself be bent. And so
the whole act is able to be explained, from start to
finish. And our intellect is fully and completely
satisfied. All of this is good physics.
Now to be more scientific (although all of the
above is good science), let us consider the
following: We intellectually know and believe that
there must be a proportional cause for any real
effect to take place. And vice versus, if there is
any cause, there must be an effect. You cannot get
something from nothing, and you cannot do something
without seeing a result or an end effect. Any
exceptions would be due an explanation, and a very
good explanation.
All of the above is important. And yet, our
belief in Special Relativity (SR) violates these very
concepts. Let us consider: You are in a giant
rocket ship, placed upon a line directed towards a
distant star. You measure the velocity of light as
it comes from this star. It is measured to be c.
Then you "rev up" the rocket motor, you blast off,
you consume millions and millions of gallons of fuel,
and accelerate your rocket until it reaches the
fantastic velocity of one-half c. While at this
great velocity, you then re-measure the velocity of
light as it is coming towards you from this same
star. And what do you get? You get no change at
all! It is still c.
The fact that you have burned millions and
millions of gallons of fuel! The fact that you have
felt all these powerful accelerations! The fact that
you have felt these terrific vibrations and heat and
noise, you see no change at all in a parameter that
should have first order effects with your actions.
This is intellectually impossible. It is not
acceptable. No matter how correct it might be, it
must be explained.
But guess what! SR does not offer one single
explanation to this impossible situation. As far as
present day science goes, SR is weak. It is
incapable of explaining some of the most basic
intellectual assumptions that exist. And we are in
need of these explanations that cannot be provided by
SR.
In LET, real changes occur with every act. The
measurement might not change, but this is only because
some changes can cancel out the effects of the
others. Cause and effects are not violated at any
time.


5) SR has many physical paradoxes:

All physically impossible measurements are what
we call paradoxes. Please note, there are no
paradoxes in the actual math. The math proves to be
internally self consistent, and you never get into
any situation where the measurement provides an
answer that is inconsistent with any other answer
within SR. But the results are not able to be
directly imagined in the human mind. That is, the
speed of light just cannot be a real constant, if the
frames doing the measurements have relative
velocities between them.
Now relativity paradoxes have been things that
have had a lot of coverage, and I have no desire of
going over such familiar material. But just so it is
repeated at least one more time, in LET, there are
never any paradoxes, either in the math, or in the
physical acts, not even imagined paradoxes. Only in
SR are there physical acts that are not possible,
unless there really are acts that are not presently
accepted in SR. That is, there must be real slowing
of clocks, and real changes in dimensions, if some of
these paradoxes are going to be fully and completely
explained.
Anyone that demands that SR does not allow for
there to be any real change, no real change in the
rates of clocks, and no real change in lengths of
rulers, then SR ends up being a weak theory, because
it becomes unable to physically explain many of these
paradoxes.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

xxein: I see you have changed your thoughts. Good.

Spalls were just an extension of any theory anyway.

How would you make LET describe gravity?

Just asking.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Fundamental weaknesses of SR.
By Gerald L. O'Barr
01 Aug 06

Special Relativity (SR) is used to make
predictions of what will be measured of certain
mechanical acts that occur in our reality. This
includes the things that will be measured in one
frame, when what is occurring in another frame is
specified. Such abilities, to predict what would be
measured, is of course critical to any science. And
SR is one of the greatest scientific achievements
that we have so far seen.
However, no theory should be accepted as being
perfect, unless or until we have 'the theory of
everything.' I believe that the following are some
of the major fundamental weaknesses that exist in
this theory.

1) SR is only a math theory.

Nonsense. It is a theory about the fundamental structure of all
physical laws (their manifest covariance), which has actually
*informed* us of the general form of some notably important laws, such
as the Dirac equation which has accurately forecast a wide variety of
phenomena, including the detailed properties of metals and
semiconductors, the existence of positrons, and a host of other things.


If you think that a physical theory *must* be a theory of little
particles banging on little particles, you have a very limited view of
what a physical theory is.

Now, you may be flummoxed by some of the odd things that nature does.
SR does in fact say, "You'll see some odd things in nature, such as
length contraction and observer-dependent simultaneity." Perhaps this
is unsettling to you and you would rather that nature do nothing you
find odd, or if it does behave oddly, then there should be a non-odd
explanation for why it behaves oddly. This is an unreasonable
expectation of science. Nature owes us no explanation for what we find
odd. The fact is, what we do not find odd is simply an artifact of what
we've become used to at our size scale and in our narrow little window
of temperature and at our pathetically low relative speeds. Most of
nature outside our tiny little comfort zone owes us no satisfaction
that it should be the same way outside that little comfort zone, and it
is in fact not the same way at all.

As an example, you are flummoxed why speeds do not add with a simple
plus sign. You think you are deserving of a physical explanation why
they do not, as though they *should* do that. In fact, we have simply
gotten used to thinking that the useful (but intrinsically wrong)
approximation of a simple plus sign that seems to work so well at our
speed scales is in fact the fundamental truth -- when in fact it is NOT
the truth at all. And your habit of clinging to the approximation of
the simple plus sign has led you down tangled alleys, where you think
it is simply impossible for light to be measured to travel at c and
then you speed up to a high speed v and the speed of light is still
measured to be c, because that would violate the imagined "law of the
plus sign". The problem is, the law of the plus sign is not a law at
all. It is an *imagined* law that turns out to be only approximately
correct and only under some circumstances.

2) SR uses 4-D.

This is a strength, not a weakness. It unifies, and shows that things
we thought were distinct are in fact not. The weakness would be
artificial separation of two things that are in fact different aspects
of one thing.

You say 3D is obviously simpler than 4D. I say you've got it backwards.
4D spacetime, using the same units for all four dimensions and with a
single metric that includes all four dimensions is obviously simpler
than two separated sets of spaces, one 3D and one 1D, with different
units and two different metrics.

I say that 4D momenergy is obviously simpler than separate concepts and
conservation laws for energy and for momentum with no obvious
connection between the two.

I'm aghast that you would think that all this duplication everywhere is
simpler.
Is 3+1 simpler than 4?

3) SR cannot invalidate its nearest competitor.

No theory wins by invalidating its nearest competitor. There has not
been a single example of a theory winning by invalidating its nearest
competitor. The way a theory wins is by predicting more phenomena more
accurately and with fewer constructs than its competitor. And in this
regard SR beats LET handily.

You say SR and LET are mathematically equivalent. For understanding
light, this is correct. But notice that SR tells you that *all*
physical laws have the same invariance with one fell stroke. LET has to
invent a new mechanism to produce this effect for every fundamental
interaction. The two are NOT equivalent. They are equivalent in a
narrow range of phenomena, but SR predicts MORE phenomena more
accurately and with fewer constructs than LET.

4) SR lacks several cause and effect relationships.

I don't see where. See the above. You seem to think nature owes you an
explanation for why the approximations that you've gotten used to are
not absolutely correct.

5) SR has many physical paradoxes.

There are no paradoxes in SR. There are many *teaching puzzles* that
are designed to deepen your understanding of SR by showing you that
what you *thought* SR is saying is not quite what it is saying. What
you *thought* SR is saying is what leads to the paradox. A proper
understanding of SR corrects this apparent paradox in a flash.

PD

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Fundamental weaknesses of SR.
By Gerald L. O'Barr
01 Aug 06

Special Relativity (SR) is used to make
predictions of what will be measured of certain
mechanical acts that occur in our reality. This
includes the things that will be measured in one
frame, when what is occurring in another frame is
specified. Such abilities, to predict what would be
measured, is of course critical to any science. And
SR is one of the greatest scientific achievements
that we have so far seen.
However, no theory should be accepted as being
perfect, unless or until we have 'the theory of
everything.' I believe that the following are some
of the major fundamental weaknesses that exist in
this theory.

1) SR is only a math theory.

So is Euclidian geometry - yet surveyors find it of great value - I wonder
why?

2) SR uses 4-D.

QM is infininte dimnesional D.

3) SR cannot invalidate its nearest competitor.

The converse is true as well.

4) SR lacks several cause and effect relationships.

Here is the rub. Nature does not have to follow how you think it should
work.

5) SR has many physical paradoxes.

It has none.

Usual rubbish snipped.

Bill

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
all snipped, due to extreme cretinism

Others have already answered your ibecilities already. I will address
only one point:

LET IS NOT equivalent to SR. One needs to add various AD-HOC
assumptions for EACH particular experiment in order to have LET produce
the same explanation as SR. This is why LET went into the garbage bin,
a theory that needs AD-HOC additions for each experiment is not usable
in science. Go **** yourself, cretin!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Fundamental weaknesses of SR.
By Gerald L. O'Barr
01 Aug 06


SR says that any velocity measurements made of the
speed of light in free space will be c. And so it
is. However, how such a constant velocity can be
achieved, when the different frames doing these
measurements might themselves be moving at all kinds
of different velocities, seems physically to be
impossible and unexplainable.

VERGON
Wrong. The explanation is supplied by the work of Gauss in his
description of group waves.

When light is emitted it is done so in wavelengths that are very close
together -- even so-called single wavelengths. Superposition causes
these waves to form standing group waves. Through these standing waves,
passing from back to front, are sub group waves
that travel at c. These sub waves are the photons.

Since the standing waves are motionless wrt the observer -- and the
traveling photon waves travel at c wrt the standing waves, they travel
at c wrt the oserver regardless of observer's motion.

Motion causes the standing waves to alter their shape and as a result
the wavelength and frequeny change, not the speed.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Fundamental weaknesses of SR.
01 Aug 06



Fundamental weaknesses of SR (Continued.)
02 Aug 06

The most critical weakness of SR is
its use of 4-D. What everyone sees as
its most important characteristic will
be its downfall. 4-D must go, and thus
so must SR go - go down the drain! It is a
silly and an impossible concept that
will no longer be acceptable to thinking
individuals.



SR and 4 dimensions.

Let us talk about space dimensions. It is easy to
tell how many dimensions exist. Take a single line.
Lay upon this line a ruler. If the ruler can be
placed in such a way that the full length of this
ruler can lay upon this line, then it is established
that our space is at least one dimensional. This is
obvious. Actually, the simple existence of this line
or the ruler was itself direct evidence that at least
a one-dimensional reality existed.
How do we know if there are at least two
dimensions? This is easy: You rotate or move the
ruler to see if you can find a position where there
is no length of the ruler that can be seen from the
line. (all 'viewing' being at a normal direction
from the line.) If you can find a position where
there is no length of ruler seen from the line, then
at that point you know that there is at least one
more dimension. You then place a line along the
ruler at this position, and you will then have a set
of axes for at least two of these dimensions.
(As a double check, you check to see that when the
ruler is along either of these axis lines, none of
its length appears as a projection upon the other
axis line.)
How do we know if there are three dimensions or
more? In exactly the same way as above! You take
your proven two dimensional grid, move the ruler to
all possible positions and see if the length of the
ruler can again disappear from both of the two
dimensions at the same time. If you find a position
where none of the length of the ruler can be seen
from either line, then you then know that there are
at least three dimensions. So you place a line along
the ruler at this special position, and you have one
set of axes for at least three of the dimensions.
And so, we now have a valid approach to checking
to see if we have a 4 dimensional space or mo We
take our simple three-dimensional grid, move a ruler
around until none of its length appears upon any of
the three lines that make up the set of axis for a
three-dimensional grid.
If we can simultaneously cause the projected
length of this ruler to disappear upon all three axes
of a three-dimensional grid, then at this point, we
would know that we would have a 4-dimensional space
or more. But guess what! There is no position that
has ever been found where the ruler does this. This
means that, so far, there is no such thing as a four-
dimensional space.
So what is the 4-D of relativity? This is a good
question. There is no real answer. The 4-D of
relativity is only a math operation. It is a math
operation that produces, in a very easy and powerful
way, correct math answers. But physically, there is
no such thing as 4 dimensional space or 4-D spacetime
as something physically real.
Let us say this again: There has never been any
test made that has been capable of showing that there
really is a 4-D spacetime continuum. Those who are
more astute do not use 4-D. They use (3+1)-D. This
makes the math Lorentz's math, and of course this
math is fully and completely correct or compatible
with known reality.
Let me say it again: There is no such thing as 4-
D. It is not science. It is impossible for it to be
science. It is a false set of words used by SR
experts only because they decided to say it and to
use it. But there is no science to it. They think
they can get away with all this because they invented
a new word, spacetime. This, to them, makes
everything O.K. But it is only a game. And the game
is now over.
Let me say it again. SR itself is a weak science.
It cannot tell us what is really happening, and why
things happen the way they do. It is only math, and
being only math, it has zero physical explanations.

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

schrieb
How would you make LET describe gravity?

If you are interested in an ether theory of gravity
which extends LET, see gr-qc/0205025

Ilja

"PD" schrieb
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
You say SR and LET are mathematically equivalent. For understanding
light, this is correct. But notice that SR tells you that *all*
physical laws have the same invariance with one fell stroke. LET has to
invent a new mechanism to produce this effect for every fundamental
interaction.

No. Your LET is a strawman. Already Poincare 1905 has proposed
that all forces of nature should obey the new symmetry and tried to
modify the theory of gravity (the only other force at that time)
appropriately.

Ilja