 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2005Facts and Rules for SR Transforms!
Facts and Rules for SR Transforms! Fact 1. All inertial reference frames, at least theoretically, can be extended, both in time and space, to cover all of reality. (For SR, we assume that all of reality is contiguous free space. This applies to all the concepts being considered in this post.) Fact 2. All reference frames, therefore, must involve the same, identical reality. If reference frame A has a tree in it, then that same tree exists in all other reference frames. If that tree is uniformly growing in one frame, then it is also uniformly growing in all other frames. Fact 3. There are two kinds of transforms: A. An object or event can remain inertial and only a change in the frame occurs. B. The object of event changes its motion with the change in frame, often the change in motion being matched to the motion of the new frame. Rule 1. A correct and proper transform of any object or event from one frame to another cannot allow a change in the age of the object or the event. Changing frames can change the local time shown on new local clocks, it can change the readings on new local rulers, but it cannot show any change in the age of the object itself, or any change in the specific step of the event occurring at the instant of the transform. If the object being transformed is a clock, then the clock's time has to remain unchanged for the instant of the transform, if a correct transform was performed. ******************** Now I am sure that there are a great number of other points that could be made. What must be observed is that in none of these facts and rules are there any math! These facts and rules are not math facts and they are not math rules. The above facts and rules are physically based. They stand above all math facts and above all math rules. It does not matter if you are using SR frames, or Newtonian frames, these physical rules stand solid, and cannot be changed. And we are going to come to understand all this, and we are going to learn how to make correct SR transforms, specifically as seen in the paradox of the twins! Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ remove 3 dots for e-mail We can look at almost any SR explanations of the twin paradox and constantly see violations of these facts and rules! > Facts and Rules for SR Transforms! > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > twin paradox and constantly see violations of these > facts and rules! That should tell you something important about your rules. Richard Perry > Facts and Rules for SR Transforms! > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > change in frame, often the change in motion being > matched to the motion of the new frame. Events don't move. Events are things that can be described with 4 numbers in any inertial frame. These give the place and the time of the event according to that frame. > Rule 1. > A correct and proper transform of any object or > event from one frame to another cannot allow a change > in the age of the object or the event. Events and objects are not transformed. Their *coordinates* are transformed from mone frame to another. Events don't have age. For some observer the age of an object is by definition the time, as seen by that observer, between two events that happen on the object. The first event is the birth of the object. The second event is one that happens on the object simultaneously with the 'now' moment of the observer. The 'proper age' is by definition the age of the object as seen by the object itself, measured with the proper time of the object, on the clock carried along by the object. > Changing > frames can change the local time shown on new local > clocks, No, it can't. Nothing happens to your local clock when you change your frame. > it can change the readings on new local > rulers, No, it can't. Nothing happens to your local ruler when you change your frame. > but it cannot show any change in the age of > the object itself, Indeed, when you change your frame, nothing happens to the proper age of the object that you observe. But changing your frame can change "the age of the object as observed in your frame". In every inertial frame in which the object is not at rest, the observed age of the object will differ from its proper age. And most frames will find different results when they compare their notes among one another. There are transformation rules to calculate the object's proper age from the observed age. When they do that, they all get the same result. In short, they all agree over the *proper* age of the object that they have calculated from their measurments of the *observed* age of the object. > or any change in the specific step > of the event occurring at the instant of the > transform. Transformations have no instant. A transformation is a calculation of numbers (coordinates or coordinate differences according to one frame) when other numbers (i.e. according to another frame) are known. > If the object being transformed is a clock, Again, objects are not transformed. Coordinates and coordinate differences can be transformed. > then > the clock's time has to remain unchanged for the > instant of the transform, if a correct transform was > performed. The clock's "proper time" plays the role of the "proper age". The proper time between any two ticks of a clock has the same value for everyone who calculates it from the observed (measured) time between the two ticks. Looking at and thinking about SR with all this in mind can take away a lot of the confusion. Dirk Vdm >> Facts and Rules for SR Transforms! >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> the change in frame, often the change in motion >> being matched to the motion of the new frame. >Events don't move. Events are things that can be >described with 4 numbers in any inertial frame. >These give the place and the time of the event >according to that frame. O'Barr comments: To me, an example of an event is the simple collision between two objects. If such an event were to be viewed in a different frame, then many things will have to be transformed, to include momentum exchanges that might be going on, energy exchanges, compressions, many more things than what you have indicated above. Would you like to reconsider what you have said? I know that I caused this problem because I separated out single objects, like a point object or a single clock, from an event. In SR you often use an event as a single object. I could have been more careful. O'Barr wrote: >> Rule 1. >> A correct and proper transform of any object or >> event from one frame to another cannot allow a >> change in the age of the object or the event. >Events and objects are not transformed. >Their *coordinates* are transformed from one frame >to another. O'Barr comments: A most correct observation. Reality itself is never affected by the coordinate system being used to provide data for man. This is exactly why I was able to say all that was being said here. >Events don't have age. O'Barr comments: It might depend on the event, and on the definition of age. Some events, like a collision, has a start (initial contact), a middle (maximum compression for the two objects undergoing a collision), and an end (rebounding away.) To me, the age of an event can certainly be considered. And each object participating in an event certainly could have an age individual attached to that object. Come on, Dirk, you are not giving me any liberty at all on these things? Why is that? >For some observer the age of an object is by >definition the time, as seen by that observer, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >with the proper time of the object, on the clock >carried along by the object. O'Barr comments: And? Yes, what you say is often done. So what you say supports what I said, that an age is a proper thing to consider? O'Barr wrote: >> Changing frames can change the local time shown >> on new local clocks, >No, it can't. Nothing happens to your local clock >when you change your frame. O'Barr comments: The clock carried on a person records the proper time for that person. We were not talking about this clock. We are talking about the grid clocks and grid rulers used to establish a measurement frame. When an SR measurement is made, you must have a grid of rulers, with clocks located at every point on this grid that will be used in any measurement, and all these clocks put into SR sync. Then, the correct SR measurement is made by using the markings and time of the grid that is local to the event being measured. These local grid markings and times do change every time you change the reference frame you are using. Did you get confused in any of this? O'Barr wrote (about changing to a new reference frame): >> it can change the readings on new local >> rulers, >No, it can't. Nothing happens to your local ruler >when you change your frame. O'Barr comments: See above. O'Barr wrote: >> but it cannot show any change in the age of >> the object itself, >Indeed, when you change your frame, nothing happens >to the proper age of the object that you observe. O'Barr comments: Great! It is good to have a few agreements. >But changing your frame can change "the age of the >object as observed in your frame". O'Barr comments: Careful! Changing frames can change the 'assigned date or time' that that object is presently existing in, and it can change the rate at which you might observe it is aging, but you cannot change the physical age of the object itself, at the instant of the change in frame. >In every inertial frame in which the object is not >at rest, the observed age of the object will differ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >their measurments of the *observed* age of the >object. O'Barr comments: I agree with what you say here. So why did you say it? The point that the actual age of the object does not and cannot change just because you change the reference frame in which it appears was what was said, and this agrees with that. So again, why were you saying this? O'Barr wrote (about what can change if a change in reference frame is made): >> or any change in the specific step of the event >> occurring at the instant of the transform. >Transformations have no instant. >A transformation is a calculation of numbers >(coordinates or coordinate differences according to >one frame) when other numbers (i.e. according to >another frame) are known. O'Barr comments: This is sure getting tiresome. Let us go over again a few points: Let us take a tree. This tree is about to show the opening of its very first bud! Every existing reference frame can see this tree, and can assign local observers in their frame to record the instant of this first bud, as measured in their frame. Every observer doing this, in every frame, can see the observers in all the other frames all doing the same thing because they are all at the same point! The same point as this one and only tree! They each see each other looking, and being ready to record this event! In some frames, which might have motion with respect to this tree, the local observer might be constantly changing, as would be appropriate, but every observer in every frame is able to be seen by everyone else. There are no problems with any of this. And at the instant that this tree makes it very first opening, everyone in every frame sees it at the same time. Exactly. Now the time and place that is recorded is of course different within each frame. But the event was fixed and absolute. And every observer in every frame saw that every observer of every frame made note of it at the same time they made note of it! Period. The numbers written in their books were different, but the event was an absolute event agreed to by all. And if this event were to be transformed between any two frames, there is one and only one correct way to transform this specific event. This is what is being addressed. And this is what we are going to have to all agree to, if we are going to understand LET. There are real events that occur! These real events decide what is real, not the reference frame being used. And any transform, that is being done correctly, will make sure that the real event is in control, not anything else. And a proper transform is only when the object is in the exact same state in both frames, at the instant of its transform. And this is absolute! Let me say this again: If you are going to give the correct transforms between frames A and B, where A's coordinates are of this tree showing the opening of it very first bud, then B's coordinates must be for this very same tree. It can not be 'this very same tree' five minutes later, or of this tree after it has died and decayed on the ground. It must physically correlate with the exact same tree, with its exact state or age! You SR experts do not generally do this in terms of the paradox of the twins, and this is wrong! I am going to correct this error! O'Barr wrote: >> If the object being transformed is a clock, . . . >Again, objects are not transformed. >Coordinates and coordinate differences can be >transformed. O'Barr comments: You are correct, objects themselves are not really (or physically) transformed. But if a clock's coordinates were going to be correctly changed from one frame to another, then the coordinates of these two frames must be exactly the coordinates for the same clock. To be the same clock, the hands on the clock must be in the identical place. To be at the identical place means that the time shown on the clock will be the identical time in both frames for the coordinates given. O'Barr wrote: >> then the clock's time has to remain unchanged for >>the instant of the transform, if a correct >>transform was performed. >The clock's "proper time" plays the role of the >"proper age". The proper time between any two ticks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Looking at and thinking about SR with all this in >mind can take away a lot of the confusion. O'Barr comments: So far, the only confusion seems to be your misunderstanding of what I am saying. I believe that you need to try at least one more time to understand what is being said. You will not be able to understand what is being said if you do not understand LET, and have the capacity to separate out physical reality, from the reality that is measured using changeable tools as we now know tools to be. Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ remove 3 dots for e-mail > >> Facts and Rules for SR Transforms! > >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > To me, an example of an event is the simple > collision between two objects. That is just an example. I gave a definition. With a definition, you have every possible example in one blow. > If such an event were > to be viewed in a different frame, then many things [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > indicated above. Would you like to reconsider what > you have said? When an event is viewed in another frame, 4 numbers have to be transformed. Nothing more. > I know that I caused this problem because I > separated out single objects, like a point object or > a single clock, from an event. In SR you often use > an event as a single object. No. An event is just what I told you it is: a thing that can be described with 4 numbers in any frame. If you need more than 4 numbers, it is not an event - by definition. > I could have been more > careful. You could have listened. > O'Barr wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It might depend on the event, and on the > definition of age. I gave you the definition of event and the definition of age. Definitions are not debatable. If you insist on using other definitions, you instantly shut down communication. > Some events, like a collision, > has a start (initial contact), a middle (maximum > compression for the two objects undergoing a > collision), and an end (rebounding away.) These are not events. By definition. These are processes. They are described by a *set* of events. > To me, the > age of an event No one cares what happens when *you* decide to invent *your* definitions of already defined and agreed upon concepts. No one cares why and how *you* manage to confuse *yourself*. I have taken great care to give you the opportunity to avoid confusing yourself. If you are not prepared to take this opportunity, then I can't help you. Whenever you decide that the time has come to invest 15 minutes of your time in avoiding getting confused, you can come back to my previous message. If you have a problem, ask any *question*, but don't *tell* me how *you* define things and how *you* manage to confuse yourself. You obviously need help, but if you're not prepared to take it, this is not going to work. I stop here without looking at the rest of your post. If you fully agree with what I have written before, reply to my previous post again. Perhaps then we can continue. If you want to learn something, this is your ticket. Otherwise, don't bother. Dirk Vdm >In <1110657999.945304.86240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> >Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: . . [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> To me, an example of an event is the simple >> collision between two objects. moortel wrote: >That is just an example. I gave a definition. >With a definition, you have every possible example >in one blow. O'Barr comments: Except your definition does not fit my example. In the example given, more than 4 data points are necessary. O'Barr wrote: >> If such an event were to be >> viewed in a different frame, then many things [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>you have indicated above. Would you like to >>reconsider what you have said? moortel wrote: >When an event is viewed in another frame, 4 numbers >have to be transformed. Nothing more. O'Barr comments: Yes, in SR, where you are mathematically transforming one math point to another math point, you can call this an event, and it only takes a fixed number of data points (4) to make this transform. But it is also possible to make an event more than just a math point. And when you deal with real physical objects, there are times when there is more information that needs to be considered. Since this is only a definition problem, we can very easily just let it be. We can still understand each other, as long as we know what we each mean. There are many more important things to consider here. Why are you not looking at these more important issues? O'Barr wrote: >> I know that I caused this problem because I >> separated out single objects, like a point object >>or a single clock, from an event. In SR you often >>use an event as a single object. moortel wrote: >No. An event is just what I told you it is: a thing >that can be described with 4 numbers in any frame. >If you need more than 4 numbers, it is not an event >- by definition. O'Barr comments: Good. I know you are using an SR definition as being unmovable. But a collision is also an event, in the English language, and it requires much more data than just its location and time. You are being picky, and it is silly! O'Barr wrote: >> I could have been more careful. moortel wrote: >You could have listened. O'Barr comments: I have heard every word you have posted. I have even agreed with many of them. I understand exactly where you are coming from. And I know that you should be able to see where I am coming from. > O'Barr wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> It might depend on the event, and on the >> definition of age. moortel wrote: >I gave you the definition of event and the >definition of age. Definitions are not debatable. >If you insist on using other definitions, you >instantly shut down communication. O'Barr comments: I haven't shut down any communications. Definitions are to be defined as are any other words, and it is clear now how we are each using these words. O'Barr wrote: >> Some events, like a collision, >> has a start (initial contact), a middle (maximum >> compression for the two objects undergoing a >> collision), and an end (rebounding away.) moortel wrote: >These are not events. By definition. >These are processes. They are described by a *set* >of events. O'Barr comments: So a single point collision is a process? I am not stubborn. If you demand that a single point collision is a process, fine with me. And I guess by your definition, then all of reality is a single process. O'Barr wrote: >> To me, the age of an event . . . moortel wrote: >No one cares what happens when *you* decide to >invent *your* definitions of already defined and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >yourself. If you are not prepared to take this >opportunity, then I can't help you. O'Barr comments: I do not believe you care at all. If your only problem was wanting to say that the word 'process' should be used if more than a math point was to be considered, you could have had instant agreement. But you did not do this. You have taken the last post here to solely talk about a simple disagreement over the definition of the word, 'event.' I personally think that you were afraid to talk about the meat of what was being said. moortel wrote: >Whenever you decide that the time has come to invest >15 minutes of your time in avoiding getting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >help, but if you're not prepared to take it, this is >not going to work. O'Barr comments: I do need help. When people like you make a mountain out of a mole hill, and by doing this, refuse to consider all the important points, it is a problem for all of us. I was being as clear as I could be as to what I was including in my definition of an event, and even if my definition was different than yours, it does not prevent it from being used. We can do it easily either way, and it will not change one single thing. Certainly it was important for you to clarify this, but your way sure was not the way to do it! moortel wrote: >I stop here without looking at the rest of your >post. If you fully agree with what I have written >before, reply to my previous post again. Perhaps >then we can continue. If you want to learn >something, this is your ticket. Otherwise, don't >bother. O'Barr comments: You can do anything you want. This is free America. And you have done what you wanted. You have stopped here. You have stopped at a place where you ended up talking about only one subject it seems. You have shown that this definition of 'event' has you so involved that you cannot consider one other thing. I am sorry about that. I would have used some other word if I had known that that was going to end our discussion. One important point that you have not addressed has to do with where you take a real physical tree, or a real physical clock, and have its coordinates change from one frame to another. When you do this, what must the state of that clock or tree be in the new frame, at the time its coordinates are correctly changed? This is an important question, and it is not usually done correctly in your twin paradox where something that is one year older is all of a sudden 7 years older. And for these kinds of errors, you are going to hang! Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ remove 3 dots for e-mail Gerald L. O'Barr blathered: > O'Barr comments: > You can do anything you want. This is free > America. What a nincompoop. ---Tim Shuba--- > Gerald L. O'Barr blathered: Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: . . . > > You can do anything you want. This is free > > America. . . . Shuba wrote: > What a nincompoop. O'Barr comments: Thanks Tim. How about the post I made about the perfect paradox of the twins? We can bad- mouth each other all day, but the figure I showed has to either be right or wrong, and I would like to hear anyone make a specific correction on what I presented. Are you brave enough to say anything about this figure? Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> > How about the post I made about > the perfect paradox of the twins? I have no desire to address any of your so-called physics, since you have shown yourself to be an unthinking a.shole in matters concerning physics. Now, that observation can be supplemented with the fact that you are also an unthinking a.shole in matters concerning internet communications and geography. ---Tim Shuba--- > > How about the post I made about > > the perfect paradox of the twins? Tim Shuba wrote: > I have no desire to address any of your so-called physics, since > you have shown yourself to be an unthinking a.shole in matters > concerning physics. Now, that observation can be supplemented > with the fact that you are also an unthinking a.shole in matters > concerning internet communications and geography. O'Barr comments: Yes, it is obvious that you and Dirk Van de moortel have no interest in actual physics. You like to make these nasty little comments because this is all you can do. But I am patient! Someday, someone will come along who knows enough to say something important. Best of everything to you! Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots for e-mail > >In <1110657999.945304.86240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> > >Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: . . [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the example given, more than 4 data points are > necessary. The place and the time of the collision define the event of the collision with 4 numbers. If you want to describe what happened to the parts before and after the collision, you describe the worldlines of the objects. Wordllines are sets of events. They can be easily described by writing the position-coordinates x, y and z as functions of the time t. These equations of the worldlines can then be "transformed to other coordinate systems". That is the way physicists and engineers use physics to calculate how they must send people to the Moon and probes to Saturn. Unless you are prepared to talk and think like this, communication with you is impossible. [remainder snipped unread] Dirk Vdm <deletes> >>>> To me, an example of an event is the simple >>>> collision between two objects. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> In the example given, more than 4 data points are >> necessary. moortel wrote: >The place and the time of the collision define the >event of the collision with 4 numbers. If you want [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to calculate how they must send people to the Moon >and probes to Saturn. Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments: Are world lines (you called them 'sets of events') called processes? It might be true, that SR experts do as you say. One point that you might be overlooking is failing to understand that there are times when more might be considered or necessary. Doing what you say you are doing is one reason why SR experts have made mistakes on explaining the twin paradox. When you show the world lines of the stay-at-home twin, as seen by the traveling twin, anywhere where the world lines overlap each other, you believe you can make a valid jump. But where they overlap, they are not in the same physical state, and so this place to make the switch is physically impossible. The math might match, the world lines might match, but the physical state of the real object involved does not match. And as I said, for this, you will hang you head in shame! moortel wrote: > Unless you are prepared to talk and think like >this, communication with you is impossible. O'Barr comments: It seems to me that I am doing just fine. How are you doing? Thanks for the communication. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots to e-mail P.S. I have shown an example of the twin paradox that I support, and no SR expert has so far indicated there there is even one point that is in error. Thus, by default, I must be correct! And you must also be agreeing with this post, since you have also made no corrections! So thank you all for your support! > <deletes> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Are world lines (you called them 'sets of > events') called processes? A process is a collection of events. A worldline is a collection of events. Some processes can be modelled by considering part of the worldline of one object. Some processes need more objects and parts of their worldlines, and perhaps even isolated events. > It might be true, that SR experts do as you say. The whole world does as I say. > One point that you might be overlooking is failing to > understand that there are times when more might be > considered or necessary. Doing what you say you are > doing is one reason why SR experts have made mistakes > on explaining the twin paradox. Every physicist and engineer does as I say in every context, even outside of SR. When you aknowledge that, we might be able to communicate. Dirk Vdm > > <deletes> > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Some processes need more objects and parts of > their worldlines, and perhaps even isolated events. Well said, Dirk. We've gone over this thing before with O'Barr about what an event is. Notice how many times the reason anti-relativists don't get relativity is simply because they don't understand basic physics and basic modern physics. They don't understand the basic rules. I'm not even talking about the advanced mathematics! Here, O'Barr clearly doesn't understand how to build a model or what function they have in theoretical physics. Models are almost always approximate representations of 'things' or behaviors of 'things' or systems. He also doesn't understand the basic lingo of spacetime. You take that impediment and add to it the belief on their part that physics is about some notion of deep reality and the result is a mind not operationally different from insane. And the fault is science education. Patrick > > "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1110769615.948948.125750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > physics. They don't understand the basic rules. I'm not even talking > about the advanced mathematics! One should not confuse a dispute about jargon with physics understanding. > Here, O'Barr clearly doesn't understand how to build a model or what > function they have in theoretical physics. Models are almost always > approximate representations of 'things' or behaviors of 'things' or > systems. He also doesn't understand the basic lingo of spacetime. O'Barr isn't discussing theoretical physics in the narrow sense, but natural philosophy. > You take that impediment and add to it the belief on their part that > physics is about some notion of deep reality and the result is a mind > not operationally different from insane. Not physics, but natural philosphy. The results were impressive: Newton's theory, Maxwell's theory, Lorentz' theory. Modern science is largely built on theories that were based on that notion. > And the fault is science education. At least we can agree about that! Harald > > "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1110769615.948948.125750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > physics. They don't understand the basic rules. I'm not even talking > about the advanced mathematics! Most of them don't even understand Galilean relativity for the simple reason that they haven't got the slightest idea about coordinates. For these people, thinking and talking about physics is like thinking and talking about Shakespeare's style before they have learned to read and write. > Here, O'Barr clearly doesn't understand how to build a model or what > function they have in theoretical physics. Models are almost always [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And the fault is science education. We talked about this before, and I agree, but only partly. Another reason is that no one is sufficiently gifted to understand everything, regardless the way it is taught. I don't call that a 'fault', but just a fact of life. If one *really* insists on finding a fault and someone to blame, then one could look at basic social education. One could point to the parents who didn't teach their children how to avoid making fools of themselves when they start commenting on Shakespeare's style before they can read. But then agian, these parents had parents as well, so... Cheers, Dirk Vdm <many deletes by O'Barr> moortel wrote: >> A process is a collection of events. >> A worldline is a collection of events. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> their worldlines, and perhaps even isolated >> events. Reany wrote: >Well said, Dirk. We've gone over this thing before >with O'Barr about what an event is. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >They don't understand the basic rules. I'm not even >talking about the advanced mathematics! Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments: You have every right to say what you want to call an event. But anyone knows that there are events and there are events. Some events are more complicated than other events. At some point, you might want to change the calling of something as an event, and call it a production, or a process, or an interaction. The boundaries are not hard to establish. And Reany, you know that I am not against SR. I support SR more than anyone else on this net. So you are lying if you try to infer that I am anti-SR! How can I be against SR, when it is the exact same math that I support? It would be suicide for me to do such a foolish thing. Surely you will tell everyone on this net that you were wrong to say that I am against SR! I consider it to be the same theory as LET. SR is the correct math that goes with our reality, and LET is the correct physics that goes with the correct math. How dare you miss this! Reany wrote: >Here, O'Barr clearly doesn't understand how to build >a model or what function they have in theoretical >physics. Models are almost always approximate >representations of 'things' or behaviors of 'things' >or systems. He also doesn't understand the basic >lingo of spacetime. O'Barr comments: You should say these things only if you can be specific. What part of my model do you find not correct? That is, what part of my model fails to produce the correct predictions? As long as you are only talk, then you are only a philosopher, and you do not belong on this net! Reany wrote: >You take that impediment and add to it the belief on >their part that physics is about some notion of deep >reality and the result is a mind not operationally >different from insane. >And the fault is science education. O'Barr comments: And again, Reany, I see you talking without being specific. This is a sure sign that you do not really know what you are doing. And I still note that not one SR expert is willing to scientifically or mathematically correct my presentation of the twin paradox. Why is that? Why are you, Reany, not making your acceptance or rejection of the twin paradox, as presented by O'Barr? Has the cat got your tongue? You do not want to agree with O'Barr? You are afraid to admit that he is right? Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots for e-mail >> In <qzTYd.36488$Eu5.3393...@phobos.telenet-ops.be> >>>In <1110678649.150831.294...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <deletes> O'Barr wrote: >>>>>> To me, an example of an event is the simple >>>>>> collision between two objects. moortel wrote: >>>>> That is just an example. I gave a definition. >>>>> With a definition, you have every possible >>>>> example in one blow. O'Barr wrote: >>>> Except your definition does not fit my example. >>>> In the example given, more than 4 data points >>>> are necessary. moortel wrote: >>>The place and the time of the collision define the >>>event of the collision with 4 numbers. If you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> physics to calculate how they must send people to >>> the Moon and probes to Saturn. O'Barr wrote: >> Are world lines (you called them 'sets of >> events') called processes? moortel wrote: >A process is a collection of events. >A worldline is a collection of events. >Some processes can be modelled by considering >part of the worldline of one object. >Some processes need more objects and parts of >their worldlines, and perhaps even isolated events. Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments: And so you have ended up agreeing with me. There are some events that require more than just 4 data points to adequately describe them. It is O.K. if you want to say that events are only these 4 data points, but if you do, then you have to call these more complicated events by some other name, such as processes, as you yourself said processes were. So there are no disagreements at all between us. Just simple terminology, which we can all accept either way, since they have the exact same results. But please note, by your approach, one would have to call a world line a process. I do not like such choices of words, but this is what you have when you use your approach. But anyone can learn to live with any definition you want, as long as it is understood by what is meant. To you, if any two or more events are included, then you have a process. O'Barr wrote: >> It might be true, that SR experts do as you say. moortel wrote: >The whole world does as I say. O'Barr comments: Then the whole world should be paying attention! When a change of coordinates are made for a real physical object, you cannot do as you SR experts do in your twin paradox, where you just match up 4 data points in one frame with the same 4 data points in some other frame, and call that a correct transform. You cannot have a real physical object make a physical jump in its physical state in any correctly done transform. And for this, Moortel, you are dead as a scientist! O'Barr wrote: >> One point that you might be overlooking is failing >>to understand that there are times when more might >>be considered or necessary. Doing what you say you >>are doing is one reason why SR experts have made >>mistakes on explaining the twin paradox. moortel wrote: >Every physicist and engineer does as I say in every >context, even outside of SR. When you aknowledge >that, we might be able to communicate. O'Barr comments: I am both a physicist and an Engineer, and I do not do the paradox of the twins as you do it. Therefore, what you say above is in error. You should repent! I showed you exactly how I do the twin paradox. And I see that you are so far unwilling to correct it! Don't you see something funny in all this? If I am in error, why not simply show it? Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots for e-mail. [snip] > >A process is a collection of events. > >A worldline is a collection of events. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are some events that require more than just 4 data > points to adequately describe them. No. An event is defined as something that needs 4 numbers. > It is O.K. if > you want to say that events are only these 4 data [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > points in one frame with the same 4 data points in > some other frame, and call that a correct transform. You haven't paid attention when I was explaining something to you yesterday. You still don't understand the meaning of the 4 numbers and the meaning of the transformation. The 4 numbers are not data points. They are coordinates. One single event has 4 numbers in one frame and 4 other numbers in another frame. There are two sets of 4 numbers for one and the same event. So what you say, namely: | "... match up 4 data points in one frame with the | same 4 data points in some other frame" is not what happens at all with a transformation. Exercise. Try to explain what *does* happen with a tranformation. Think carefully. If you can properly do that, then perhaps we can continue. Dirk Vdm >In <1110827782.614687.31620@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> >>Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] Moortel wrote: >Exercise(:) Try to explain what *does* happen with >a tranformation. Think carefully. >If you can properly do that, then perhaps we can >continue. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments: What an excellent idea. Let us take the twin paradox. Transforms can be done with such a problem. Twin B remains at home for 8 years. His location, his x, y and z coordinates in his fixed frame, are given to be zero, and his time starts at zero and goes to 8 years. Twin A, in this fixed frame, moves at a speed of 0.866c for 4 years, to a distant star located 3.464 light years away on the x axis, and returns in 4 years at this same speed, all as measured by twin B, who remains at home in his fixed frame. This completes the entire event of what occurs in this frame for this paradox of the twins. No one ever has a problem with the world lines in this frame. I have never seen a problem in this frame. I hope you agree with this! Please note: All four coordinate data points, for both twins, are totally definable for all positions and times involved. Every coordinate thus specified is mathematically correct in every detail. For the moving twin, he has two frames, the one he uses when going out to the star, and the one he uses when he returns. Let us consider the first frame, the frame used when going to the star. In this frame, in going out to the star, he also maintains an x, y, and z as zero, and his time begins at zero and goes to 2 years. The distant star is on his x axis, and is moving towards him, and the apparent motion of his twin, who remains at home, is a motion that is also upon the x-axis, moving away from him. The speed for both motions is 0.866c. Now according to SR experts, the twin going to the star, in the frame that takes him to the star, measures this distant star to only be one half the distance away, and the star arrives at his location in only 2 years, according to his clock. This perfectly jives with his measurement of the speed of this star, being 0.866c, and with the distance he measures, being 1.732 light years distance when it started to move towards him. At the same time, the stay at home twin is seen moving the same speed away, but this stay at home twin's clock is going at only one half of the rate of the clocks in this moving frame, so when the stay at home twin stops moving, at a distance of 1.732 light years away, the time on the stay at home twin's clock shows only 1 year. This completes the explanation that SR experts like to show in this outgoing frame. To repeat, in this frame, the location of the stay at home twin ends up being on the x axis, at a distance of 1.732 light years away, and with a time of 2 years (for the time shown in the frame it is being measured in), but with only 1 year showing on the clock being held by the stay at home twin. Now at this time, the moving twin jumps into the frame that will bring him back home. In this frame, the star begins to recede, and the stay at home twin begins to come back, both this receding and this return being at the velocity of 0.866c, all along the x axis of the returning frame. And when the moving twin returns home, his time will show 4 years, but the time on the clock of the twin who remained at home will show 8 years. So what the SR experts say, and it is correct, that the time on the stay at home twin's clock in the returning frame, when it was 1.732 light years out, was showing 7 years, so that it could end up being 8 years when the two twins were reunited. And this statement is correct. So what is the problem? The problem is, no physical clock can jump from showing 1 year, to showing 7 years, in any correct transform. And yet, in the explanations of this paradox, SR experts use (infer) this jump as being a correct transform. What you SR experts did, was that you took the time of two years in the outgoing frame, and the two years of the incoming frame, and the distance of 1.732 light years, and said that this was a common point, and used this common point (having identical coordinates) as being a proper transform between these frames. And by doing this, you caused an impossible physical result. Shame on you! And your arguing about what an event is, or even what constitutes a proper transform, has nothing to do with this error that you have made in this presenting of the paradox of the twins. Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots for e-mail > >In <1110827782.614687.31620@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> > >>Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What an excellent idea. > Let us take the twin paradox. No. That is too soon. First convince me that you understand why your statement | "... match up 4 data points in one frame with the | same 4 data points in some other frame" is wrong. Explain what a tranformation really does. Dirk Vdm >> . . . [snip] Moortel wrote: >>> Exercise(:) Try to explain what *does* happen >>> with a tranformation. Think carefully. >>> If you can properly do that, then perhaps we >>> can continue. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> What an excellent idea. >> Let us take the twin paradox. >> . . . . . Moortel wrote: >No. That is too soon. O'Barr <globarr> comments: Too late! It has already been done. Moortel wrote: > First convince me that you understand why your > statement > "... match up 4 data points in one frame with the > same 4 data points in some other frame" > is wrong. > Explain what a tranformation really does. O'Barr comments: A transformation is a funny word, but I will continue to assume that you are assuming that this word is a transform of coordinates. A transform first of all means that you have at least two different reference frames, which means that they have different origins and or orientations and or rates of times and or lengths of rulers and or syncs so that one or more of the coordinates are or will be different between the frames specified. This means that the coordinates used for the reality or problem in one frame will be expressed in one or more different values in the other frame. The transform can be a mathematical way to correctly accomplish this change in coordinate values between these different frames. Now in SR, this is only a math theory, and normally only math points are involved, and for math points, only 4 coordinate values are involved in the normal transforms that are done. When you are only transforming points, there are no orientations to worry about with just points, and there are no ages or states to points, and thus SR experts can get very careless with this simple transform of just single, simple points. But in LET, this theory is a physical theory, and transforms can be done physically, as well as mathematically. One does not need a formula, one can often very easily see that a different length ruler will physically do, and what a different sync will physically do, and sometimes it is very easy to just know what the transform should be. But the math does help, especially if there are general variables being used. But when it is done physically, then the nature of the object is much more important than just a point. We know that the physical nature of an object (such as a clock) cannot be affect by a mere change in its coordinates. Therefore, when SR experts show some of their paradoxes of the twins, with objects showing impossible jumps in their physical state, we know that they have made a physical error in their explanations. Now I have answered your questions. Now how about telling me what is wrong with the paradox of the twins, as I have presented it. And in what I presented, a transform in coordinates was done where the physical twin moved from one set of coordinate points to another, but he did not change his age, nor did any of the other physical things around him, when the change in coordinates were made. In other words, it was both physically correct, as well as mathematically correct. Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots for e-mail. > >> . . . > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > different frames. > Now in SR, this is only a math theory, This is not a math theory. It is a way to describe events. It has nothing to do with SR. Exactly the same thing is done in Galilean relativity. It is how the physicists describe the world. > and > normally only math points are involved, and for math [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > careless with this simple transform of just single, > simple points. Again, this has nothing to do with SR. You are very confused or ignorant. And you haven't paid attention to what I said in my first reply: | Wordllines | are sets of events. They can be easily described by | writing the position-coordinates x, y and z as functions | of the time t. These equations of the worldlines can then | be "transformed to other coordinate systems". This way you describe an infinity of events, written in some frame with the components ( x(t), y(t), z(t), t ), and each event characterized by a time parameter. Dirk Vdm >> . . . [snip] O'Barr wrote: >> Now in SR, this is only a math theory, ... Moortel wrote: > This is not a math theory. O'Barr comments: Are you sure? SR is not a math theory? In physics, there are basically two kinds of theories that are used: You have some theories that are based upon a physical model, and from the physical model, you develop the math from the physical acts that are caused within the physical model. Examples of physical models, from which the math is eventually developed, is the kinetic theory of gases, where PV = nRT is eventually derived or approximated, and LeSage's efforts to explain gravity is another physical theory. The other theories in physics are where there are no physical models or physical explanations that are known or assumed, by which physical acts might be causing specific results, from which you can approximate or derive the math. All you have in these theories are just certain math assumptions, with no physical base. Now these math assumptions can be used to derive other math relationships, but no physical causes and effects are ever presented for the math that was originally given. An example of such theories is Newton's law of gravity, being only math, with no physical base for the relationships presented in the math. So, Moortel, is SR a math theory (setting c to be a math constant and restricting the specific form that math equations can take), or is it based upon a set of physical objects that act in specified ways (like LET, where physical clocks and physical rulers interact with an ether and behave in specified physical ways from which the math is eventually developed)? Moortel wrote (about SR): > It is a way to describe events. O'Barr comments: And is not math used to do this? So this does not prove that it is not a math theory. Moortel wrote: > It has nothing to do with SR. O'Barr comments: I see. Nothing to do with SR? Moortel wrote: >Exactly the same thing is done in Galilean >relativity. O'Barr comments: Well, we do all use math. LET uses math, the exact same math as is used in SR. Why you even have to call your math, the Lorentz transforms. When we use these relationships, we do not have to say that we are using SR transforms, do we! Moortel wrote: > It is how the physicists describe the world. O'Barr comments: It certainly is part of what is used. But let me explain to you, the simple transform of a point does not tell you the temperature of that point, or any of its physical charateristics! For this, you will have to attach more info than just your four numbers. There is physics, and then there is physics, and you do not know where to begin. O'Barr wrote (about what is done in SR): >> . . . and normally only math points are involved, >> and for math points, only 4 coordinate values are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> get very careless with this simple transform of >> just single, simple points. Moortel wrote: > Again, this has nothing to do with SR. O'Barr comments: I heard you the first time, that this has nothing to do with SR. And it makes no more sense here than it did the first time. Are you sure, it has nothing to do with SR? Moortel wrote: > You are very confused or ignorant. O'Barr comments: Now this might be. I am certainly confused and ignorant of how you can say that none of this has anything to do with SR. Moortel wrote: >And you haven't paid attention to what I said in my >first reply: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >z(t), t ), and each event characterized by a time >parameter. O'Barr comments: And every thing you have said here appears to me to be math perfect. Are you still sure it has nothing to do with SR? Eventually, Moortel, you are going to have to address the original question. Is the transform shown in the SR explanation of the twin paradox, where a twin jumps from being only 1 year older, to a twin being 7 years older, is that a physically valid transform? A simple yes or no is sufficient. Eventually, you are going to be forced to admit that the paradox of the twins, as I have presented it, is correctly done. It is important to see all this. Once this is clearly seen, then the advantages of the ether approach can be more clearly understood. Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots for e-mail > >> . . . > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Are you sure? SR is not a math theory? In > physics, there are basically two kinds of theories Yes, I'm sure, but since you clearly have no idea whatsoever about physics (let alone about SR), nor about mathematics, I will leave you in the safe hands of Harry Ether Harald. He seems to think that you try "to talk about physical reality" and that I reply "about mathematics", so I'm sure that you guys have a lot in common and even more to talk about. Enjoy each other now... Dirk Vdm >> . . . [snip] O'Barr wrote: >>>> Now in SR, this is only a math theory, ... Moortel wrote: >>> This is not a math theory. O'Barr comments: >> Are you sure? SR is not a math theory? In >> physics, there are basically two kinds of theories >> . . . Moortel wrote: >Yes, I'm sure, ... O'Barr comments: Good! Then if there are only two kinds of theories, theories based on physical models and theories that have only a math base, then what kind of a theory is SR? It is obvious that SR has no physical base, such as LET! Therefore, SR is only a math based theory. Thanks for this agreement! Moortel wrote: >but since you clearly have no idea whatsoever about >physics (let alone about SR), nor about mathematics, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in common and even more to talk about. >Enjoy each other now... O'Barr comments: Now Moortel, it is too obvious what you are doing. You are unable to respond to my paradox of the twin post, and this is the only way out. You decided that all you can do is just give up. Sorry about that. If I did not know anything, look how easy it would be to be specific, and to show all my mistakes on the paradox of the twins. But you do not do this, do you! So either I am right, which I am, or else you really do not know if I am right or not. Either way, you have to escape. Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dots for e-mail > >> . . . > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Good! Then if there are only two kinds of > theories, As always you don't understand what people say. I meant that I am sure that SR is not a math theory. I didn't read your second sentence. Talk to Harry. Just like you he thinks SR is a math theory. Dirk Vdm > >> . . . > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >Exactly the same thing is done in Galilean > >relativity. That looks like a good comparison to me. Galilean relativity is used in Newton's theory, just as SRT is used in both the theories of Lorentz and Einstein. To explain the difference, O'Barr calls them "math theories" vs. "physical theories". Right? SNIP > Eventually, Moortel, you are going to have to > address the original question. Is the transform > shown in the SR explanation of the twin paradox, > where a twin jumps from being only 1 year older, to a > twin being 7 years older, is that a physically valid > transform? A simple yes or no is sufficient. Why do you insist on that? Take an observer who is co-moving with the travelling twin, and who has a clock that is synchronised during the first leg. We all know (or at least he knows for sure) that if he is near the stay-at-home during his turnaround, he will not observe a "jump" of the stay-at-home clock. Instead he will observe that the calibration between his clock and the travelling twin has been messed up by their change of speed. Thus observers in a physical moving frame have no choice but to admit that their own measurement system "jumps", and not the clock of the stay-at-home. As in fact should be immediately clear from the fundamental laws of cause and effect. Harald > Eventually, you are going to be forced to admit > that the paradox of the twins, as I have presented > it, is correctly done. It is important to see all > this. Once this is clearly seen, then the advantages > of the ether approach can be more clearly understood. Harry: >> Moortel wrote: >> >Exactly the same thing is done in Galilean >> >relativity. > >That looks like a good comparison to me. What it looks like to you is a point where you depart from reality. >Galilean relativity is used in Newton's theory, just as SRT is used in both >the theories of Lorentz and Einstein. Special relativity _is_ einstein's theory. And, by the way. If galileo had the mathematics available today, we wouldn't have needed to wait for newton. All of newtonian mechanics can be derived straight from galilean relativity using variational calculus and group theory. >To explain the difference, O'Barr calls them "math theories" vs. "physical >theories". Right? Wrong. What o'barf and you refer to as the difference between a ``math theory'' and a ``physical theory'' is just your ignorance of the math used in physical theories and your belief that nature was created in your own image. Physicists who are interested in discovering how nature actually works have to do so on nature's terms and realize that ignoring the mathematics available to them to do so would be stupid. > Harry: > >> Moortel wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What it looks like to you is a point where you depart from reality. Bilge, you don't like it when I agree with Dirk? > >Galilean relativity is used in Newton's theory, just as SRT is used in both > >the theories of Lorentz and Einstein. > > Special relativity _is_ einstein's theory. He merely put that label on what others had labelled "relativity", to distinguish it from his GRT: "a theory which, today, is generally called the "theory of relativity", I will call [it] - in order to distinguish it from [GRT] - the "special theory of relativity". - A. Einstein, 1916, official English translation. What SRT physics do you think was Einstein's theory and not Lorentz' theory? > And, by the way. If > galileo had the mathematics available today, we wouldn't have needed > to wait for newton. All of newtonian mechanics can be derived straight > from galilean relativity using variational calculus and group theory. I would like to read about that, do you know a good (historically reliable) book about that? > >To explain the difference, O'Barr calls them "math theories" vs. "physical > >theories". Right? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the math used in physical theories and your belief that nature > was created in your own image. Nonsense. See the other thread. > Physicists who are interested in > discovering how nature actually works have to do so on nature's > terms and realize that ignoring the mathematics available to them > to do so would be stupid. We fully agree on that. Harald Harry: >> Harry: >> >> Moortel wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Bilge, you don't like it when I agree with Dirk? Huh? I'm not talking about dirk. I'm talking about your departure from reality that starts with your gratuitous comment above before you go off into la-la land below. >> >Galilean relativity is used in Newton's theory, just as SRT is used in >both [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >He merely put that label on what others had labelled "relativity", to >distinguish it from his GRT: Your inabiity to distinguish relativity from similar theories is well known. [...] >> And, by the way. If >> galileo had the mathematics available today, we wouldn't have needed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I would like to read about that, do you know a good (historically reliable) >book about that? What does history have to do with it? Can't you read? I said the mathematics of _today_. Furthermore, why do you need to look this up? It's straightforward to derive all of that yourself. Start with the galilean transforms. Find the invariants associated with the galilean group using noether's theorem. Presto. You're done. Hint: For the correct form of the galilean boost, define a metric, ds^2 = (dt+)(dt-) - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 such that (dt+)(dt-) preserves the degenerate metric, i.e. equals zero and dt+ is a lightlike vector. The generator of galilean boosts is then, t^- d/dx^i - x^i d/dt^+ > Harry: > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Your inabiity to distinguish relativity from similar theories > is well known. Rather your inability to distinguish philosophy from physics... BTW the above was practically a *citation*.. > [...] And you actually SNIPPED the citation itself. IOW you really don't want to know. > >> And, by the way. If > >> galileo had the mathematics available today, we wouldn't have needed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > look this up? It's straightforward to derive all of that yourself. > Start with the galilean transforms. Some people claim that the "Galilean transforms" were set up after Galileo. AFAIK, they are Newton's. Without evidence, I won't blindly believe that Galileo derived them or even implied them. Harald > Find the invariants associated > with the galilean group using noether's theorem. Presto. You're done. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > t^- d/dx^i - x^i d/dt^+ Harry: >"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message >> Your inabiity to distinguish relativity from similar theories >> is well known. > >Rather your inability to distinguish philosophy from physics... >BTW the above was practically a *citation*.. This is a physics newsgroup. >And you actually SNIPPED the citation itself. >IOW you really don't want to know. Actually, I don't care. [...] >> What does history have to do with it? Can't you read? I said >> the mathematics of _today_. Furthermore, why do you need to >> look this up? It's straightforward to derive all of that yourself. >> Start with the galilean transforms. > >Some people claim that the "Galilean transforms" were set up after Galileo. Then give my regards to those some people for driving my point home. Now I can add, ``and even if galileo had known just enough math to express his own ideas, newton would have been that much further ahead.'' >AFAIK, they are Newton's. >Without evidence, I won't blindly believe that Galileo derived them or even >implied them. I really don't care. All you've done is add additional emphasis to the point I made by giving a really good example of why it's important to be able to express ideas in physics mathematically. So please, don't accept tht galileo derived those transforms. >Harald I see you didn't bother deriving anything yourself, despite being given a hint. >> Find the invariants associated >> with the galilean group using noether's theorem. Presto. You're done. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> t^- d/dx^i - x^i d/dt^+ > Harry: > >"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I see you didn't bother deriving anything yourself, despite being given > a hint. There is no mathematical difference, thus no difference in ideas can be shown that way. Harald > >> Find the invariants associated > >> with the galilean group using noether's theorem. Presto. You're done. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Harry: >Bilge: >> I see you didn't bother deriving anything yourself, despite being given >> a hint. > >There is no mathematical difference, thus no difference in ideas can be >shown that way. So, what was your point? That you don't accept the fact that newtonian physics is derivable from the galilean transforms using mathematical techniques today because you don't think galileo was the first to derive those transforms, or what? All you've done is try to contradict the fact that galilean transforms can be used to derive classical mechanics via an irrelvant digression about irrelevant historical nonsense. >> . . . [snip, snip, snip] O'Barr wrote: >> Eventually, Moortel, you are going to have to >> address the original question. Is the transform [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> physically valid transform? A simple yes or no is >> sufficient. Harald wrote: >Why do you insist on that? O'Barr comments: Theoretically, every frame that exists sees everything else that exists. And everything that exists is at only one place at a time. If you are going to make a simple transform of object A from one frame to another (that is, not change the motion of A, but just change its coordinates for those in another frame), object A does not physically move during the transform. Object A does not physically change in any way. If object A is sitting at the time it is transformed, it is sitting in all fames, and if you transform it from any frame to any other frame at the time it is sitting, it is still sitting. There can be no physical change in the object that is transformed. Let me say this again. There is only one reality. All frames sees the same reality, and all things are seen at the physical spot which they occupy. Only the coordinates of this spot differ, depending on the frame you are using. Therefore, when you change frames, the physical spot that that object occupies does not change, only the coordinate values do the changing. The physical object itself has not changed in its actual location, or in its conditions, age, size, or anything else. Only the values of the coordinates have changed, along with the specific set of tools doing or setting these values. Now of course any characteristics of the object that is measured with tools that have changed, can show a change. But that is all the changes that there can be, just changes that can result from the tools being used. You cannot change a one-armed man into a two- armed man, or a women into a man, such measuring tools do not exist. And there are no tools that can change a clock that is reading six o'clock to one that is reading seven o'clock. These statements are absolute, and cannot be changed by any theory or science. Physical requirements are different than math requirements. Let me repeat myself a third time. Whenever any object A exists, then all frames that exist, that is recording this object, have local observers at the same spot, the spot where object A exists. Any transform that occurs, occurs at this one and same spot, if it is done correctly! If the transform is done at this one common spot, then the object is transform in its exact form that it has at this one common spot. End of problem! Now I am not saying any of this to scare anyone away. Certainly anything I say can be said better and maybe more carefully. But the basic logic better not be ignored. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dote for e-mail > >> . . . > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > There can be no physical change in the object that is > transformed. I'm afraid you overlooked my comment that you wiped out with yours and which was similar. My question was why you insist on asking Dirk, as he surely knows that it is correct, and as I illustrated even without using reality. Harald > Let me say this again. There is only one reality. > All frames sees the same reality, and all things are [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> > \ Remove 3 dote for e-mail > news:1111030907.608424.152680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > >> . . . > > > > [snip, snip, snip] Harald wrote: >I'm afraid you overlooked my comment that you wiped >out with yours and which was similar. >My question was why you insist on asking Dirk, as he >surely knows that it is correct, and as I >illustrated even without using reality. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments: I am sorry that I missed this. My response was not really meant to be to you personally, but as usual, I was using your question as a springboard to go on my normal ranting on this problem with all the others that might be reading this. (All the others mean the one or two that might be doing silly things like reading what I write.) Again, I am sorry that I did not pay closer attention to what you were doing. Thanks for helping! Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> \ Remove 3 dote for e-mail > > news:1111030907.608424.152680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > >> . . . [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > usual, I was using your question as a springboard to > go on my normal ranting :-))) > on this problem with all the > others that might be reading this. (All the others [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for helping! You're welcome! Harald > >> . . . > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > All frames sees the same reality, and all things are > seen at the physical spot which they occupy. If you want to maintain that 'All frames sees the same reality' you better learn how to stack the deck to make it so in your theory by allowing only those quantities that are frame independent to be called "real." Like I said before, you don't understand how theoretical physics works. Patrick > > >> . . . > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > All frames sees the same reality, and all things are > > seen at the physical spot which they occupy. I'm afraid that that may easily be misunderstood... Surely you imply something like: All frames see the same reality, although with different eyes (they make different observations of it). > If you want to maintain that 'All frames sees the same reality' you > better learn how to stack the deck to make it so in your theory by > allowing only those quantities that are frame independent to be called > "real." > > Like I said before, you don't understand how theoretical physics works. Patrick, what do the words "real" and "reality" mean to you, in the context of physics? Do you agree with the dictionaries: * Real - "Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language" - I agree * Reality - "That which exists objectively and in fact" - I agree But also: *Reality - "all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you" - I disagree, and it contradicts the above definition. Harald [snip] > > > Let me say this again. There is only one reality. > > > All frames sees the same reality, and all things are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All frames see the same reality, although with different eyes (they make > different observations of it). But that still doesn't tell us what you mean by "reality"! > > If you want to maintain that 'All frames sees the same reality' you > > better learn how to stack the deck to make it so in your theory by [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > * Real - "Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or > conventions of thought or language" - I agree That definition is fine for metaphysics but is terrible for physics! Existence in physics is in two presumably different realms: the realm of concepts and the realm of phenomena. And that's stating it quite simply. Phenomena is the realm of appearances --- the realm in which measurements are taken, and there are no objects in it at all! But there are quasi-objects in it -- they are invented by the sentient mind for its own purposes. Let me illustrate my point this way: If a neutrino were sentient, it probably would never invent the word 'solid', except in its own religion or science fiction. And if you want to get somebody besides yourself to accept your theory, it's not objectivity that counts, it's intersubjectivity that counts. Physics NEVER touches the objective world! Nobody can prove to my satisfaction that there even is an objective world. (Maybe the universe is just a single object.) However, physics doesn't need the objective world. It only needs a world of quasi-objects in phenomena that can be defined up to a certain level of accuracy. It's the job of theory to connect concepts to quasi-objects through operational definitions. The minumum quasi-ojects you need are observers (actual people) and standard measuring instruments. Convention guarantees you that much and a whole lot more. Whatever else your theory needs that convention doesn't supply the theory has to justify it. Patrick reany@asu.edu: >Phenomena is the realm of appearances --- the realm in which >measurements are taken, and there are no objects in it at all! But >there are quasi-objects in it -- they are invented by the sentient mind >for its own purposes. Let me illustrate my point this way: If a >neutrino were sentient, it probably would never invent the word >'solid', except in its own religion or science fiction. Let's put it this way. When you see a statement like "in the rest frame of the neutrino'', nobody in their right mind believes there is a little ball of stuff sitting there. So, your assessment is not only correct from the point of view of your hypothetical neutrino, it's correct from the point of view of anyone who takes quantum mechanics seriously. Particles are not ``things'' in any sense of the colloquial meaning of the word ``thing''. If a neutrino were sentient(?) What is with this name change? It was: Re: Facts and Rules for SR Transforms! >>Reany wrote: >>>> . . . [snip] Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: . . . >>>> Let me say this again. There is only one >>>> reality. All frames sees the same reality, and >>>> all things are seen at the physical spot which >>>> they occupy. Harry wrote: >> I'm afraid that that may easily be >> misunderstood... >> Surely you imply something like: >> All frames see the same reality, although with >> different eyes (they make different observations >> of it). O'Barr comments: Sounds O.K. to me. But it is important to fully understand my point! There really is only one reality. We are all part of this reality. If there is an object A in this reality, then we all see that same object, whether we are moving or not moving, whether we are in its rest frame or not. Our tools might be different in different frames. And so, as you say, what we measure can be different. But we all can and do testify of the same reality. By this, I mean such things that if object A does anything (sticks a finger in his ear, or even blows up), then this act is observed by the observers of all frames, by observers who are local to object A at the time A does this. They all observe it at the same instant of time (though possibly with different clock times, but obviously at the same real time), while they are all co-located at the same point in reality (but again with many different grid readings.) These facts cannot be argued. And these facts are important as we begin to compare SR with LET! And we know that within our reality, there are no real jumps, no real breaks in symmetry, none of the things that are created within SR. Only LET brings to us the capacity to have the kind of a reality that is observed. We have the capacity to observe reality through our own local observers. The only thing we cannot do, is to exactly determine the temporal relationships between our local observers who have a positive displacement from each other, and this is true for our own frame as well as for all the other frames. But other than this, we can observe this reality just as close as we care to observe it, and through our local observers, we can know with certainly the things being said. Reany wrote: > But that still doesn't tell us what you mean by > "reality"! Reany wrote: . . . >>> If you want to maintain that 'All frames sees the >>> same reality' you better learn how to stack the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> Like I said before, you don't understand how >>> theoretical physics works. Harry wrote: >> Patrick, what do the words "real" and "reality" >> mean to you, in the context of physics? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> regardless of subjectivity or conventions of >> thought or language" - I agree Reany wrote: >That definition is fine for metaphysics but is >terrible for physics! O'Barr comments: I am sorry, Reany. This might not really be fair, but let me just pick out isolated statements you make. I cannot stand to present everything you said in this post: Reany said: . . . >Phenomena is the realm of appearances --- t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message