🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >  Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >   In SR, neither "length contraction"
> > > > nor "time dilation" are physical -- they are purely
> > > > geometrical.  A moving ruler does
> > > > not physically get any shorter, it is merely MEASURED
> > > > shorter by an observer relative to whom it is moving
> > > > along its length.
> > > > Ditto for clock tick-rates.

O'Barr comments:
On The Measurements of Lengths!

   I, of course, accept LET as the best science we
now have.  It is not perfect, but it is certainly
more perfect than SR.  And LET explains that there is
one frame in which the actual lengths of rulers are
controlled or affected, and in which the rates of
clocks are controlled or affected.  This one frame
causes all clocks to slow down with their absolute
velocity, and it causes all rulers to shorten with
their absolute velocities, at least in the direction
of their motions.
    And this is not all that this frame does:  It
controls the upper limit to the speed of light along
with controlling the rates of clocks that are moving
in it and the lengths of rulers.  It also provides
the energy and background that allows QM to work,
etc.  But this is far beyond where we need to go
here.
   These changes in clock rates and lengths of rulers
are all simple functions, all simple functions of
just their absolute velocity and the original values
of the characteristics being considered.
    So the base to all of our answers is really very
simple.  So what is so complicated?  What makes
things so complicated is this:  The specific
functions for these rate and length changes are very
special or unique functions.  They are much like
derivative functions where the changes (the
derivatives) are the same functions as the function
themselves.  It thus becomes difficult (even
impossible) to keep clear if the changes being seen
are the changes on the changes, or changes on the
original functions, for they are all the same!
    These functions do naturally occur, and are
reasonable on their own level.  But their results
are, in many ways, some very odd results.  We end up
with these changes in rates and changes in lengths
such that all moving systems can set up grids and
sync their clocks in such a way that they all appear
to be non-moving entities within the ether.  And this
really is strange.  And it makes our physics just as
it is seen to be in SR, where every inertial
reference frame ends up measuring the speed of light
to be c within its own system, and all measurements
made in these moving systems see all other clocks and
rulers to appear to change with the same function or
rate exactly as they would be seen to be if they were
in the one and only ether frame.
    This is what makes everything appear to be so
mysterious.  But it is not mysterious, once one
understands what is actually going on.  The base is
as simple as possible, but the results are not
simple.  They each appear to be just as simple as the
base, but in our minds, we know that all this is
unnatural.  Only until we understand the nature of
the math can we really be at ease with all these
crazy SR results.
   The results is this:  We have tools that we use to
make measurements!  But the fact is, the tools we are
all using can all be different.  Those in one
reference frame have tools that have been changed in
one way, and we in another reference frames have
tools that have been changed in another way.
    And thus, we each can measure some things, and
see changes that do not exist because it is the
differences in our tools that are causing these
differences, and at other times we can see some
things being the same when they are not the same,
again due to the differences in our tools being such
as to cancel out these differences.  Thus, what we
measure is a combination of changes in our tools and
changes in the things around us.  And sometimes the
combined effects results in changes that are real,
and sometimes the changes are not really real.  But
most of the time, there is a combination of both real
changes and changes in our tools.  And the math to
obtain such relationships come from a math that has
to include either our true absolute velocity
functions, or at the very least, our relative
velocity functions, if we are to obtain predictable
answers.

   This is our reality.   So if anyone wants to know
something about the length of something, it is really
impossible to really know, until we find a way to be
able to measure our absolute velocity.  When all we
can do is measure our relative velocity, we are able
to tell what might be measured, but we are unable to
tell how much of any measurement is really a real
change in the object being measured, or a change in
the tools we are using to measure their lengths, or
if it is some combination of these effects.
   But what we can deduce most certainly, is that
there really are some real changes going on, it is
not all just changes in our perspective, and that we
will someday know that some of these things are real.

   So when we listen to these SR experts, yes, they
really might be right in some cases.  But No!  A
thousand times, No!  They are not right in all cases.
There really are real changes going on, and even if
we cannot know specifically where these changes are
real or not, they are there, and SR experts are crazy
and stupid for not being able to understand how
O'Barr is correct.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr    <globarr...@yahoo.com>
                    (globarr)