sci.physics.relativity

Math Theories and Physical Theories.

In physics, we have many different kinds or
types of theories, and different levels or degree of
completeness of theories. A complete theory is where
a complete explanation is provided for some
identifiable relationship that can be seen or
observed or assumed to exist. To be complete does
not mean that all questions are answered, but it does
mean that certain important questions are answered.
It means that causes and effects are present and
understood, and a physical base exists upon which the
math is defined, and limited, and interpreted.
Today, most of our theories in science are fairly
complete theories. What we can have for theories can
be as simple as just correlations of what is observed
under certain situations, to actual positive
explanations that can be trusted and used in
everything we do.
The two most basic types of theories are math
theories and physical theories. A math theory is
where someone has put together a math equation which
uses a set of variables in such a way that certain
results can be predicted.
Now there are different levels of math theories.
Some math theories are just guesses. Someone has
found a set of variables that can provide correct
predictions. Some math theories are based upon
certain assumed rules or laws or principles. These
theories are considered to be a higher order theory
than just guesses, but again, they are still often
just math assumptions, with no real cause and effects
involved.
What are physical theories? All good physical
theories eventually end up being a math theory, but
with an important difference. The input or base to a
physical theory includes one or more physical
objects, and it is their physical characteristics
that explain the results. I repeat: The input to a
physical theory consists of physical objects and the
known or assumed physical characteristics of these
physical objects are the causes of the effects being
seen.
Almost all theories are based upon these kinds of
physical inputs. Most sciences are physical based
theories. If we take the laws of chemistry, or
mechanics or thermal dynamics, these are all theories
based upon stipulated characteristics of physical
objects causing the effects being predicted.

But when we go into some theories, we do not have
a physical base to the theory. Newton's law of
gravity does not have a physical base. It deals with
physical objects, but it does not have a physical
base upon which causes and effects can exist for the
effect being predicted. PV = nRT is a physical
theory, because it provides the cause and effect
relationship for every thing that occurs.
Now these two types of theories, based only on
math or on a physical base, most often go together.
We find that each of these have their advantages and
disadvantages. Math has two characteristics that are
powerful: Math is extremely flexible. Math can
usually mimic anything and everything. Thus, if any
physical relationship is found, then a math to
represent that relationship seems to be able to
always be found. If no physical base can be found
for some result, however, one can still make the math
work, as long as the effects are repeatable.
We know that math is extremely exact. If any
relationship deviates from the math, the math will
instantly be able to tell us that there is a
deviation, and by how much. Therefore, if anyone
were to believe that some relationship was a fixed
relationship, a math representation of this
relationship would be expected to work.
So we see that a math based theory can always be
expected. And if a math were based upon some assumed
physical reality, and under those limits, there is
exactness achieved by the use of that math, there is
reason to assume that the physical assumptions are
correct. They support each other.
Now again we have mentioned some strengths of
having a math theory: It can be used for almost
anything and it is exact. Now when we say that it
can be used for anything, this means real
relationships as well as made up relationships, it
just does not matter. Math will usually be able to
be made to work. And this is the major weakness of a
math theory. The fact that we have a math to express
a relationship is not in itself dependable in
establishing the correctness of the explanations of
the theory.
To follow up on this, let us take Newton's law of
gravity: F = G * m1*m2/r^2. We can assume from
this math relationship, that the force of gravity
involves the mass of two objects and the distances
between these two objects. But it can only be an
assumption. The math does not really prove this. It
provides to us no positive indications as to how
gravity is actually accomplished. Because we have
this math relationship, it is good, it is fairly
exact for most normal gravity situations, and it is
thus a very valuable theory. But it is weak, in that
it cannot provide to us one single positive
explanation.
Let us repeat this concept one more time: Yes, if
a math relationship is found to correctly mimic a
known relationship, then it is very likely that the
variables being used are not only important to the
relationship, but likely to be sufficient. But the
understanding of how, and the nature of those
relationships are not known. And if any of the
variables being used are proportional to any other
variable, even variables not specifically mentioned,
then the math might even be misleading us as to what
is actually involved, even if its predictions are
perfect.
Now what does a physical theory provide to us?
When there is a physical base, then there comes with
the physical base a whole set of rules and
relationships. Very special 3-D rules comes into
play. Special rules about dimensions, and volume,
and limits to amounts, and changes in amounts, and in
relative distances. There is, in fact, many limits
not often seen or considered. When there is a
physical base, then there are things that the math
cannot do. Infinities are not allowed.
Math itself does not normally care about such
things. Many math problems can handle infinities
fairly well. Often a math can integrate over an
infinity with no problem. But if you have a physical
reality to deal with, infinities are not too often
allowable. So having a physical base is important in
that it forces the math to remain finite, and only
realistic and doable results can be allowed, etc.
If a theory can pass both sets of requirements, if a
theory can be completely compatible with its physical
base (and all the limitations the are included in
this) and it still has the power to make exact
predictions, then you have a theory that is much more
powerful than a theory that is only math.
We now are ready to talk about SR and LET.
SR is only a math theory. LET is a physical
theory. The math ends up being the same for each of
these theories. But LET is the stronger theory. And
it is stronger because it has a physical base.

Because LET exists as a viable theory, exists as a
simple 3-D theory, it removes from SR all of its
ability to force any belief in anything that SR
experts want to say. No SR expert can say that the
math of SR requires any person to support 4-D. As
long as LET exists, LET is a direct example of where
the math of SR does not required anyone to support 4-
D. If SR experts say that the math of SR requires
one to believe in 'back in time' concepts, LET is an
example of where this math does not support such an
act.
If SR experts want to say that SR math forces
velocity to be c or less, LET math prevents such
things from being said. Thus, because LET
exists, then SR experts cannot use SR math to support
one single thing that LET does not support. Because
LET exists, then SR ends up with no math support what
so ever. Any and everything SR experts want to say
is true, will never be able to be supported by its
math. Only a definitive test, a test that can
separate SR beliefs from LET beliefs, can ever be
used by SR experts to give a scientific support to
SR.
Thus, SR math is one of the weakest math theories
that have ever existed, since at no time has any
definitive test been found to give support to SR over
LET. Therefore, SR experts are not scientific. They
are not even willing to state these facts, and what
these facts actually mean. They are in a state of
denial. They cannot even be honest. All they can be
are mean, and vindictive, and cheat in what they say
is known, versus some reasonable scientific answers.

The very purpose of science is to understand
things, to understand our reality. Thus, having
causes and effects within a theory are important.
And knowing what is true or false is important.
Because both SR and LET uses the same math, then it
becomes impossible for SR math to establish the
correctness of anything that is presented by SR math.
In other words, SR math has multiple interpretations.
This weakness never seems to be formally recognized
by SR experts. They seem to think that just because
their interpretation works, in their eyes, that this
fully justifies them scientifically. But this is an
error of the first degree. It makes me sick to even
think about it.
The truth of something might not really be able
to be established. But things do become more true
(more believable, more trusted) as there are obtained
correlations upon correlations. Any theory that has
the power to explain one fact is a valuable theory.
But it really is possible that it is only an accident
that the theory works. But if a theory produces
begins to provide independent correlations with other
known facts, then the value of a theory increases.
And if you have six of seven independent
correlations, then the acceptance of a theory would
be almost impossible to deny.
When one has a physical theory, the number of
correlations that are possible are usually greatly
increased. And with LET, we have such an increase in
correlations. And thus, as was said, LET can not be
ignored by any physicist who has actually compared
these theories point by point by point.

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