Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

globarr_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: 25 Feb 2005 17:06:53 -0800

In <421f3090$3$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> . . .

<many deletes not shown in previous post>

O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> I and everyone who now believes in an absolute
>>reference frame approach have been made into kooks
>> . . .

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz interrupts:
>No; the ones that don't behave like kooks are not
>treated like kooks.

O'Barr comments:
   I was not just talking about how they behaved or
were treated. I was saying that you see them all as
kooks. No matter how they might act or how you might
treat them, to you, they are all kooks! And that
makes you unscientific!
     Your own words fully betray you. Your own words
say we are all kooks, exactly as I said. Your words
are only saying that you will treat those kooks who
behave one way, differently than those kooks who
behave another way. Your own words have thus sent
you to hell!

O'Barr wrote:
>> And you yourself, as far as I know,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>That's not very far. You are a willfully ignorant
>fanatic with delusions of adequacy.

O'Barr comments:
   You sure pack a lot of comments for breaking my
thoughts up into even less than complete sentences.
Do you feel good when you so such things?

O'Barr tries to continue again:
>>you have not agreed with me that LET is just as
>>scientific as SR.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>The issue is not whether LET is scientific; the
>issue is whether *YOUR* presentation of it is
>scientific. Your presentation of it is cargo cult
>science, and quite different from what the real
>physicists pushing LET write.

O'Barr comments:
   When your FAQ was written, it was not just
dismissing my presentation of LET, was it? And when
text books are written, they are not just criticizing
my presentation of LET, are they? And when courses
are given, and the professor says that the M&M
experiment disproved all ether theories, they were
not just thinking of my presentation of the theory
were they? Therefore, your point is in error!
    Even if my concepts were wrong, the correct LET
theory, as it is presently presented on
sci.physics.relativity by O'Barr and Tom Roberts and
a few others, is being directly rejected in your FAQ,
in our modern text books, and by real living
professors! And since you yourself did not state
your acceptance of LET as being scientific, then I
guess I must include you in this group who just will
not accept LET as being scientifically equal to SR in
every way! Why are you so unscientific?

O'Barr still trying to respond with only half a
sentence showing:
>>leaving out the good points,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>There are none; only bomasticism and ad hominem
>arguments. You are doing a grave disservice to those
>actually working with LET theories.

O'Barr comments:
   What ever disservice I do, nothing should prevent
you from saying what is correct, that LET, when
correctly presented, is an acceptable scientific
theory. Let me hear you say this!

O'Barr wrote:
>>But you clearly indicate that there is no
>>supposition when it comes to something that might
>>contradict SR.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>Another lie.

O'Barr comments:
   Another lie? What was the first? And what was
the second? Maybe you only 'slightly' indicate that
there is no supposition when it comes to something
that might contradict SR? Was the lie that you did
not do this 'clearly'? Or was it that it was not just
a supposition, but an outright declaration? You
really ought to be more clear when you get this
serious.

O'Barr wrote:
>> So I am a kook for believing in a cause and
>>effect reality,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>So you admit to beating your wife? That has as much
>to do with what you wrote as your question has to do
>with what I wrote.

O'Barr comments:
   Then why don't you scientifically restate the
disagreement? It is not hard to restate the problem,
in your own words, so that we can all easily
understand what is being said.

O'Barr wrote:
>>Is there anyway I can make up for such an
>>unacceptable thing?

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>D,NA.

O'Barr wrote:
>>Please do not answer.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> FOAD.
>
>Since I don't suffer fools gladly, it is time to say
>AMF. *PLONK*

O'Barr comments:
   It is obvious you do not have any scientific
remarks to make. It is good to see you go.

   LET is scientifically correct, both in terms of
what it predicts, and for its internal consistency.
It actually ends up with the identical math as SR.
Actually, SR ends up with the identical math as LET,
because it is SR that has to say that it is using the
Lorentz transforms, LET does not have to say that it
is using SR transforms.
   Therefore, on a math level, these two theories are
identical, and one cannot be disproved without
disproving the other, and one can not be supported
without supporting the other. It works both ways.
LET is thus as well proved of a theory as SR, and
there is no scientific way to escape this dilemma!
   But since LET has a physical base, that is, a
physical base upon which the math gets developed,
then LET ends up being superior to SR. The physical
base of LET provides a solid, fixed, explanation to
the theory. Thus, the meaning of the math, the
limits to the math, the definitions contained in the
math, are all set in concrete.
  And all of what happens in LET occurs in the
simplest of 3-D space, and 1-D time, the simplest of
time. There is nothing mysterious and impossible
like what is seen in SR, where you have 4-D spacetime
continuums, where space can become time, and time can
become space, etc. These physically impossible
things, to include breaks in symmetry, and jumps in
times, do not appear in LET in any physical sense.
And thus, in all ways, LET is a far superior approach
to SR.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
\ remove 3 dots to e-mail

Relevant Pages