Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The "SR interpretation" of the measurement is
simply:
The true speed of the train is 100 km/h because the
distance is measured with measuring rods that never
change their proper lengths, and the time is
measured with clocks that always run at their proper
rate.

O'Barr comments:
Don't make me laugh. SR cannot use certain words.
Those who hold to SR can never say the true speed of
the train. You have no absolute reference to even
mention or to contemplate it. Your very choice of
words betray you and your inabilities to know your
own weakness. You cannot say the words I use. You
cannot think the words I use. LET allows such
thinking and understanding, but in SR, you have no
scientific way to even mention such things.
And what is this proper length? It is not
anything. It is only what is measured in the frame
in which you are at rest. What a sick thing to give
a special name to something that was already
established, the measured length. And the same thing
about your proper time. Again, proper time is just
the time as measured in the frame that is at rest
with the clock. You act as if these measurements are
special, and they are, but no more so than what they
were before you gave them another name. Shame on you
in not knowing anything.

You are talking nonsense because you are living in
a fantasy world where rods contact and clocks change their
rates to an unknown degree.

There is no reason to think that the real world is like
that. According to SR, rods never change their intrinsic
length, and clocks never change their rate.
Clocks and rods are not affected in any way just because
they are moving relative to an arbitrary observer.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The "LET interpretation" of the measurement is that
the measured speed 100km/h probably is wrong,
because the distance is measured with measuring rods
that are contracted an unknown amount, and the time
is measured with clocks that run slow to an unknown
degree.

And you wonder why LET is considered an obsolete
theory of historical interest only? :-)

O'Barr comments:
So you are willing to live with an approach where
two clocks are both going slower than the other, and
you really know that both are going slower than the
other. And you are willing to live with an approach
where every photon is going passed you with the same
speed. Even if you are going faster and faster, the
speed of light going passed you remains a constant.
You are sick. These things are physically
impossible. Every thinking person in this world
knows that they are impossible. And yet you can lie
to these people right in their face, and say it
really is true. Shame on you.

Read the following, and think about it:
The state of motion of the observer relative an object
cannot affect the observed object, but it can affect
the observer's observation of the object.

That the observations of two objects in different state of motion
are different doesn't necessarily mean that the objects are different.

deletes by O'Barr of a propose way to measure our
absolute velocity by using a physical approach


Paul B. Andersen wrote:
If you find it, you have falsified LET.

O'Barr comments:
If we find our absolute reference frame, it will
for sure falsify SR. But whether or not it falsifies
LET depends in how it is found. And LET would be
very easy to adjust if it was found to be necessary.
But SR, being just math, has no flexibilities at all
to adjust to any change.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Good luck. :-)

O'Barr comments:
Well thanks. But I really do think that I have
already done this. The rotating of a solid cylinder
about its long axis of symmetry creates two physical
clocks. The two ends of this rotating cylinder can
represent the hands of a clock if a mark were made on
each end. And these two clocks are then separated by
the distance in space equal to the length of the
cylinder. When this cylinder is not rotating, the
marks at each end can be perfectly synced, with both
marks pointing in the same direction into space. And
the sync between these marks are held fixed or
determined by the physical solidness of the cylinder.
If this cylinder is caused to spin, so that the
hands (marks) at the ends of the cylinder begin to
turn like the hands of a clock, then each end could
be used as a clock. One rotation of the hands would
be one rotation of the cylinder.

Sure.

Now while we have the cylinder rotating, let us
begin to also cause the bar to move along its length.
As we allow the bar to move along its length, while
it is still rotating on it length axis, the sync of
the two clocks will have to be very special if the
clocks maintain SR sync. The bar will have to
physically twist from end to end while it is
spinning.

Here you got it backwards again! :-)

According to normal physics and SR, "not physically twisted"
must mean with no internal stresses.
That is, the cylinder maintains it normal shape.
And if the cylinder is spinning with no internal stresses,
(except for those associated with the centripetal acceleration),
then indeed the two clocks at the ends are in perfect sync
in the frame of reference where the cylinder is not moving.

In a frame of reference where the cylinder is moving,
it will however _appear_ to be twisted (the observer's
state of motion affects his observation of the cylinder),
and the clocks will NOT be in sync in this frame.

As I have consider the forces involved, I do find
that the cylinder will twist in the right direction
to maintain SR sync, but it does so only about half
of what is required. If it fails to maintain proper
SR synch, then we now have a way to measure our
absolute velocity.
This solution does not directly violate any LET
rules. And such a solution should not give us heart
burn, since we do know that rotation is itself an
absolute form of motion. All that is being done in
this approach is seeing that the physical sync that
exists in a rotating bar (by the physical twisting of
the bar) is different than the man made sync that we
use for clocks. There is nothing that I know of that
requires these two syncs to be the same.

Thanks for asking.

Gerald L. O'Barr


I still find it amazing that you can claim that
SR and LET is the same theory and still think
you can falsify SR and not LET. :-)

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:

O'Barr comments:
Don't make me laugh. SR cannot use certain words.
Those who hold to SR can never say the true speed of
the train. You have no absolute reference to even
mention or to contemplate it. Your very choice of
words betray you and your inabilities to know your
own weakness. You cannot say the words I use. You
cannot think the words I use. LET allows such
thinking and understanding, but in SR, you have no
scientific way to even mention such things.
And what is this proper length? It is not
anything. It is only what is measured in the frame
in which you are at rest. What a sick thing to give
a special name to something that was already
established, the measured length. And the same thing
about your proper time. Again, proper time is just
the time as measured in the frame that is at rest
with the clock. You act as if these measurements are
special, and they are, but no more so than what they
were before you gave them another name. Shame on you
in not knowing anything.

You are talking nonsense because you are living in
a fantasy world where rods contact and clocks change their
rates to an unknown degree.

There is no reason to think that the real world is like
that. According to SR, rods never change their intrinsic
length, and clocks never change their rate.
Clocks and rods are not affected in any way just because
they are moving relative to an arbitrary observer.

If clocks never change their rate due to motion.....then why does the SR
effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground
clock??


Read the following, and think about it:
The state of motion of the observer relative an object
cannot affect the observed object, but it can affect
the observer's observation of the object.

Then why does all returning traveling clocks show less elapsed time than the
stay at home clock?

Ken Seto

On 2007-05-23, harry wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 22, 1:10 am, "harry"
wrote:
[...]

LET this LET that. Nobody cares.

The theory is worthless because the concept of the ether died a long
time ago. Give it a rest.

I don't care about "LET" but the ether concept is very much alive with
vacuum physics. ;-)


Wrong. The vacuum is the unique ray, |0, in hilbert space, not
spacetime, which contains no particles. It can therefore not be
a physical medium in any sense of the term ``physical medium.''

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-23, harry wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 22, 1:10 am, "harry"
wrote:
[...]

LET this LET that. Nobody cares.

The theory is worthless because the concept of the ether died a long
time ago. Give it a rest.

I don't care about "LET" but the ether concept is very much alive with
vacuum physics. ;-)

Wrong. The vacuum is the unique ray, |0, in hilbert space, not
spacetime, which contains no particles. It can therefore not be
a physical medium in any sense of the term ``physical medium.''

Just google for "vacuum physics" ;-)

On 2007-05-25, harry wrote:

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-23, harry wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 22, 1:10 am, "harry"
wrote:
[...]

LET this LET that. Nobody cares.

The theory is worthless because the concept of the ether died a long
time ago. Give it a rest.

I don't care about "LET" but the ether concept is very much alive with
vacuum physics. ;-)

Wrong. The vacuum is the unique ray, |0, in hilbert space, not
spacetime, which contains no particles. It can therefore not be
a physical medium in any sense of the term ``physical medium.''

Just google for "vacuum physics" ;-)

I don't have to google for it.