"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in news:1179724499.460570.183070
@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

If you really want a velocity measurement problem,
how about measuring our absolute velocity?

Why did you bother to propose a test that, at best could only measure
relative velocity because it does nothing toward looking for an absolute
frame of reference.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
On May 19, 11:35 am, "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in glegroups.com...

O'Barr wrote:
Subject: The physical lies in SR.
What a great question.
How you would measure it is very important. But
let me say ahead of time, that the question is not
really how to measure something, but what can be said
about the total meaning of the measurement once it is
done.

All I was trying to do was to get you to talk rationally
about measurement and reality.

O'Barr wrote:
In SR, you claim that all measurements are a
direct statement of our reality.

Let us leave SR out of it for the moment.

O'Barr wrote:
Formally, in SR, one has to lay out a measurement grid,
with rulers of assumed known dimensions, with
correctly functioning clocks (all running at the same
rate) located at every point where a measurement is
to be made, and then all these clocks are given a
sync so that the velocity measurement of all free
space photons show a value of c.

We all know about SR, but how would you do it?

O'Barr wrote:
But physically, if there are two trains on this
track, one does not need to measure the speeds of
these two trains to know which one, if any, is
physically going the fastest. All you need to do is
to attach a tight thread or string between these two
trains. If the string remains at a constant
tightness, then the two trains are going the same
speed. If the string breaks, the train in front is
physically going faster than the train in the rear.
If the string sags, then the train in front is going
slower than the train in the rear. No measurement is
needed for this: no clocks, no syncing of clocks, no rulers.
And physical events are superior to any math, for
math is not limited to physical reality, and
therefore should not always be trusted.
And I assure you, the string does not
tell you that any one of these trains is
going both faster and slower than the other,
all at the same time.


Can you give me a straight answer for one train on
one track. How would you set up an experiment to
measure its average speed?

O'Barr comments:
I gave you a 'straight' answer. To repeat:

**************************************************
Formally, in SR, one has to lay out a measurement grid,
with rulers of assumed known dimensions, with
correctly functioning clocks (all running at the same
rate) located at every point where a measurement is
to be made, and then all these clocks are given a
sync so that the velocity measurement of all free
space photons show a value of c.
************************************************** ****

With such a measurement grid, you simply record the
data at any two points where the front of the trian
arrives, take the distance represented between these
points, and divide by the time differences represented
between these two points.
As I said before, the measurement is not the problem.
The problem are the interpretations. And SR's interpretations
are sick and physically impossible.


Now why don't you be straight, whatever that means,
and tell me that you understand what I am saying, and
that you fully agree. And we are going to be honest,
and tell everyone the limitations that exist in SR, and
how LET solves many of these limitations.

Thanks!

Martin's question was:
"How would you set up an experiment to
measure its average speed?"

That is, how would YOU, with your knowledge of
the perfect theory LET, set up a practical
experiment to measure the average speed of the train?

Forget SR, which according to you are "physically impossible".
We don't want a "formally in SR" answer.

Can we get YOUR answer, please?

When you have done that, you can explain the difference
between the "SR interpretation" and YOUR interpretation
of YOUR measuring method.

Paul

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Subject: The physical lies in SR.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:

Martin Hogbin wrote:
I have not motioned SR. I am simply asking how
_you_ would measure the speed of a train.

O'Barr wrote:
You did not say not to mention SR. And this
is an SR site. What is your problem? I see
nothing wrong with using SR standards.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
AS you know, I see nothing wrong with SR but you
do. I am therefore trying to start from a position
where we both agree.

O'Barr comments:
I have no complaints about SR. I think you are
not being very honest. Let me say what I think for
about the 100th time: SR and LET are actually the
same theory. SR is the correct math for our free
space reality, and LET is the correct physics that
supports the correct math.

I interpret this to mean that YOU would measure
the speed of the train just like any physicists would.

Let's say that the measurement yields 100 km/h.

You said about this speed measurement:
" As I said before, the measurement is not the problem.
The problem are the interpretations. And SR's interpretations
are sick and physically impossible."

I would like you to explain this statement.
How does the "LET interpretation" of the measurement
that yielded 100 km/h differ from the "SR-interpretation"
of the measurement?
How is SR's interpretation "the speed of the train
is 100 km/h" sick and physically impossible?


Martin,
If you really want a velocity measurement problem,
how about measuring our absolute velocity? One
approach that should work is a physical approach. I
am aware of the problems of tying to measure our
absolute velocity directly, by using clocks, etc.
But let us consider a physical approach. Being a
physical approach, no clocks, no syncs of clocks, no
actual measurement has to be done as far as the basic
test might be involved:

1) Let us take two long flat plates, one placed
above the other, and one of them is designed with
accelerators all along its length to cause it to be
able to be slammed into the plate below it.


2) If we could cause the accelerated plate to
absolutely hit the plate below it perfectly flat on,
that is, simultaneously from end to end, then we
could measure our absolute velocity. Our absolute
velocity would be indicated by noting the end to end
differences in the clock times for the upper plate to
hit the bottom plate. If there were no differences
in the end to end times of contact, then our absolute
velocity in that direction would be zero. If there
is a difference, then that difference would be due to
there being an absolute velocity vector in that
direction.

So how could this be done? First of all, one would
have to find a collision that would vary as the angle
of hit might vary. For example, what if a thin layer
of water was held on the surface of the bottom plate.
If the upper plate hit flat, the spray of the water
would form a very symmetrical pattern. But if the
upper plate hit first on one end, and then the other,
the spray of water will certain change its pattern.
So what could be done would be this: The
acceleration of the upper plate would be controlled
by power devices that could be timed by special
timing circuits. By trial and error, one could
repeat this act until the settings of these timing
circuit resulted in a perfect pattern all up and down
the plates.
Once this is achieved, we could assume that these
plates were in fact hitting in an absolute
simultaneous fashion. At this point, then the use of
SR clock sync would be used to find out the
difference in time, if any, was measured between the
contact times across the length of these plates.
Now much more could be said about every step being
taken, but at least this gives enough to understand
the basic approach. The power of this approach is to
use the power of physical reality to skip around the
measurement limitations that exist in SR. It is much
like the scissor paradox, where infinite velocity is
able to be obtained by the point of intersection of
the blades of a scissor, when they are properly
designed. This physical approach of scissors is also
a good physical approach to consider, since it would
accomplish the same thing.

And you are serious? :-)

You say what you think for about the 100th time:
" SR and LET are actually the same theory.
SR is the correct math for our free space reality,
and LET is the correct physics that supports the correct math."
and you still think it is possible to measure the absolute speed?

Amazing!

Paul

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
oups.com:

What I take exceptions to are the SR experts who
believe in physically impossible things. SR experts
make themselves to be the most dumb people on earth.
They believe in physically impossible things. SR
experts actually believe that if you have two
inertial reference frames traveling upon the same
inertial line, with a relative velocity between them,
then a photon going by these two frames
on the same line, can actually
go by each of these relative moving frames with the
exact same relative velocity of c.

You are incorrect. SR says that the photon is just moving and how it moves
is independent of the speed of its source or any observer.

SR says that when that speed is measured by any observer, moving at any
speed in ANY iFoR, the observer will measure the speed as 'c'.

This is not true. In SR any inertial observer will define the speed of light
to be c based the circular definition for a meter length equal to
1/299,792,458 light-second. No direct one-way speed of light ever been
performed. Hummm....I wonder why.

LET and SR both say that is what happens.

LET says that the speed of light is isotropic c in the rest frame of the
ether.

SR says it is because the observer's rulers and clocks appear to OTHER
observers to be going slower and getting shorter. To the observer in the
iFoR, the rules and clocks do not change and the speed of that photon is
c.

This is the SR geometric projection effect....much like I see you to be
shorter from a distance and you see me to be shorter from a distance. The
problem with that is that all clocks in relative motion will have a
different rate of accumulating elapsed time.....for example the SR effect on
the GPS clock is 7 us/day runnong slow compared to the ground clock.

Ken Seto

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 19, 8:18 pm, Hayek wrote:
[...]

...and LET is discarded because the ether is unnecessary. SR does the
same thing with less philosophical idiocy.

Correction: SR-Minkowski does the same thing as SR-Lorentz with *more*
philosophical idiocy. ;-)

Harald

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
oups.com:

What I take exceptions to are the SR experts who
believe in physically impossible things. SR experts
make themselves to be the most dumb people on earth.
They believe in physically impossible things. SR
experts actually believe that if you have two
inertial reference frames traveling upon the same
inertial line, with a relative velocity between them,
then a photon going by these two frames
on the same line, can actually
go by each of these relative moving frames with the
exact same relative velocity of c.

You are incorrect. SR says that the photon is just moving and how it moves
is independent of the speed of its source or any observer.

SR says that when that speed is measured by any observer, moving at any
speed in ANY iFoR, the observer will measure the speed as 'c'.

LET and SR both say that is what happens.

SR says it is because the observer's rulers and clocks appear to OTHER
observers to be going slower and getting shorter. To the observer in the
iFoR, the rules and clocks do not change and the speed of that photon is
c.

LET say that it is because the observer's rulers and clock ACTUALLY go
slower and get shorter because of some magic aether.

I don't know such a theory - you are both mistaken.

This is, of
course, physically impossible.

It is LET that is physically impossible.

I agree that your "LET" is physically impossible.

And anyone who
actually believes that this occurs, is silly, and
dumb, and impossible. You know this, and I know
this, and yet we really have people who say that they
believe this, and they teach this. And it is the
most stupid thing in this world to believe and to
teach.


We see, every day, that things, in the distance, look smaller due to
perspective but we do not believe that some magical local aether makes
them
actually smaller.

Likewise we see that, in space-time, things moving at high relative
velocities, LOOK like they are 'smaller' in certain ways due to our
perspective but we do not believe that some magical local aether makes
them
actually smaller.

Hmm... Do you believe that "fast moving clocks":

1. do not slow down.
2. DO slow down
3. Something else?

If 1): Please explain how it can be that Einstein correctly predicted that a
"fast moving clock" turns out to have slowed down relative to a "stationary"
clock when brought back at the same place.
If 2): Please explain what slows it down.
If 3): Please explain what you think is going on here. ;-)

Cheers,
Harald

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Subject: The physical lies in SR.
[...]

Martin,
If you really want a velocity measurement problem,
how about measuring our absolute velocity? One
approach that should work is a physical approach. I
am aware of the problems of tying to measure our
absolute velocity directly, by using clocks, etc.
But let us consider a physical approach. Being a
physical approach, no clocks, no syncs of clocks, no
actual measurement has to be done as far as the basic
test might be involved:

1) Let us take two long flat plates, one placed
above the other, and one of them is designed with
accelerators all along its length to cause it to be
able to be slammed into the plate below it.


2) If we could cause the accelerated plate to
absolutely hit the plate below it perfectly flat on,
that is, simultaneously from end to end, then we
could measure our absolute velocity. Our absolute
velocity would be indicated by noting the end to end
differences in the clock times for the upper plate to
hit the bottom plate. If there were no differences
in the end to end times of contact, then our absolute
velocity in that direction would be zero. If there
is a difference, then that difference would be due to
there being an absolute velocity vector in that
direction.

So how could this be done? First of all, one would
have to find a collision that would vary as the angle
of hit might vary. For example, what if a thin layer
of water was held on the surface of the bottom plate.
If the upper plate hit flat, the spray of the water
would form a very symmetrical pattern. But if the
upper plate hit first on one end, and then the other,
the spray of water will certain change its pattern.
So what could be done would be this: The
acceleration of the upper plate would be controlled
by power devices that could be timed by special
timing circuits. By trial and error, one could
repeat this act until the settings of these timing
circuit resulted in a perfect pattern all up and down
the plates.
Once this is achieved, we could assume that these
plates were in fact hitting in an absolute
simultaneous fashion. At this point, then the use of
SR clock sync would be used to find out the
difference in time, if any, was measured between the
contact times across the length of these plates.
Now much more could be said about every step being
taken, but at least this gives enough to understand
the basic approach. The power of this approach is to
use the power of physical reality to skip around the
measurement limitations that exist in SR. It is much
like the scissor paradox, where infinite velocity is
able to be obtained by the point of intersection of
the blades of a scissor, when they are properly
designed. This physical approach of scissors is also
a good physical approach to consider, since it would
accomplish the same thing.

And you are serious? :-)

You say what you think for about the 100th time:
" SR and LET are actually the same theory.
SR is the correct math for our free space reality,
and LET is the correct physics that supports the correct math."
and you still think it is possible to measure the absolute speed?

Amazing!

Indeed. After all this time, O'Barr STILL does not understand the Lorentz
transformations... :-(

Regards,
Harald

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
oups.com:

What I take exceptions to are the SR experts who
believe in physically impossible things. SR experts
make themselves to be the most dumb people on earth.
They believe in physically impossible things. SR
experts actually believe that if you have two
inertial reference frames traveling upon the same
inertial line, with a relative velocity between them,
then a photon going by these two frames
on the same line, can actually
go by each of these relative moving frames with the
exact same relative velocity of c.

You are incorrect. SR says that the photon is just moving and how it
moves
is independent of the speed of its source or any observer.

SR says that when that speed is measured by any observer, moving at any
speed in ANY iFoR, the observer will measure the speed as 'c'.

This is not true.

Yes .. it is

In SR any inertial observer will define the speed of light
to be c based the circular definition for a meter length equal to
1/299,792,458 light-second.

It doesn't matter how you define the length of 1m .. as long as it is the
same length in all the iFoR.

The speed being c is not some artefact of the length being defined
'circularly' based on the universal constant c

You seem to imply there is some cheating going on, and the the speed of
light will always be the speed of light due to the definition of a metre.

No direct one-way speed of light ever been
performed. Hummm....I wonder why.

It has AFAIK

"harry" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
oups.com:

What I take exceptions to are the SR experts who
believe in physically impossible things. SR experts
make themselves to be the most dumb people on earth.
They believe in physically impossible things. SR
experts actually believe that if you have two
inertial reference frames traveling upon the same
inertial line, with a relative velocity between them,
then a photon going by these two frames
on the same line, can actually
go by each of these relative moving frames with the
exact same relative velocity of c.

You are incorrect. SR says that the photon is just moving and how it
moves is independent of the speed of its source or any observer.

SR says that when that speed is measured by any observer, moving at any
speed in ANY iFoR, the observer will measure the speed as 'c'.

LET and SR both say that is what happens.

SR says it is because the observer's rulers and clocks appear to OTHER
observers to be going slower and getting shorter. To the observer in
the iFoR, the rules and clocks do not change and the speed of that
photon is c.

LET say that it is because the observer's rulers and clock ACTUALLY go
slower and get shorter because of some magic aether.

I don't know such a theory - you are both mistaken.

Lorentz postulated that some kind of 'drag' from the aether caused the path
the light followed to actually be shorter.

LET just makes these effects 'local' rather than 'absolute' in order to
explain away the lack of the effect the Lorentz aether predicted in the
MMX.



This is, of
course, physically impossible.

It is LET that is physically impossible.

I agree that your "LET" is physically impossible.

.....

Hmm... Do you believe that "fast moving clocks":

1. do not slow down.
2. DO slow down
3. Something else?

If 1): Please explain how it can be that Einstein correctly predicted
that a "fast moving clock" turns out to have slowed down relative to a
"stationary" clock when brought back at the same place.
If 2): Please explain what slows it down.
If 3): Please explain what you think is going on here. ;-)


In order to reunite, the clocks must start at the same point in space time
and end up, again together, at another point in space-time.

I think that the clock that travels a longer path in the 'space' portion of
space-time' must travle a shorter path in the 'time' portion' of space time
in order to reunite.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
oups.com:

What I take exceptions to are the SR experts who
believe in physically impossible things. SR experts
make themselves to be the most dumb people on earth.
They believe in physically impossible things. SR
experts actually believe that if you have two
inertial reference frames traveling upon the same
inertial line, with a relative velocity between them,
then a photon going by these two frames
on the same line, can actually
go by each of these relative moving frames with the
exact same relative velocity of c.

You are incorrect. SR says that the photon is just moving and how it
moves
is independent of the speed of its source or any observer.

SR says that when that speed is measured by any observer, moving at any
speed in ANY iFoR, the observer will measure the speed as 'c'.

This is not true.

Yes .. it is

No it isn't. It is only if the circular defintion for the meter is used.

In SR any inertial observer will define the speed of light
to be c based the circular definition for a meter length equal to
1/299,792,458 light-second.

It doesn't matter how you define the length of 1m .. as long as it is the
same length in all the iFoR.

Sure it does. Why do you think they had to dream up a circular defintion for
the meter length? The reason is that if they use physical length to measure
length the one-way speed of light is not c.

The speed being c is not some artefact of the length being defined
'circularly' based on the universal constant c

It isn't then why did they used the speed of light to define the speed of
light? You really think that's not circular?

You seem to imply there is some cheating going on, and the the speed of
light will always be the speed of light due to the definition of a metre.

Yes there is some cheating going on. They define the meter to fit the SR
postulate that the speed of light is a universal constant.
It turns out that such cheating is not necessary. In real life the speed of
light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

No direct one-way speed of light ever been
performed. Hummm....I wonder why.

It has AFAIK

No it hasn't.
Please give reference if you can.

Ken Seto